Go Dilma!
In general, the British don’t go in for all that whooping and hollering when it comes to politicians. Of course there are a few whoopers and hollerers out there, but most of us tend to feel a tinge of regret when choosing to support a politician. We choose Politician X because, having weighed up the options, we’ve decided that he or she is the least bad of the bunch. Certainly not as bad as Politicians Y and Z. But that doesn’t mean we’re about to start waving flags and having parties.
With that out of the way, I can now say that it seems to me that Dilma (let’s get the pronunciation right – it sounds like JIL-ma) has done a pretty decent job since coming to power. I’m not going to pretend that I spend huge amounts of time reading hundreds of in-depth political pieces (my Portuguese level is closer to João e Luiza vão à Praia), but I’ve formed this opinion based on a few factors.
There are a lot of images of Dilma out there, not all of them flattering, but I like this one for the fact that it looks fairly natural – less like one of those awful, staged campaign posters.
Popularity
If you’re a politician and people aren’t baying for your blood, then you’re probably doing a good job (assuming there’s a free press). I can’t think of a single time I’ve heard someone say a bad word against Dilma. Seriously, it’s been more than 18 months now – I think the honeymoon period is over. And following a president with the popularity of Lula was never going to be easy. This is anecdotal, but nevertheless, I know several people who voted for Dilma’s opponent in the presidential elections and even they are pretty positive about her. People moan about plenty of politicians, but for Dilma I think that the silence speaks volumes.
Surely everyone’s favourite shot of Dilma. In the days of the military dictatorship, Dilma joined various left wing guerilla groups to fight the regime. She was captured, tortured and imprisoned for 2 years between 1970 and 1972. Here you see her looking magnificently defiant during a military hearing, whilst those judging her hide their faces.
Corruption
In the country that brought you the phrase Rouba mas faz (used to say that although a politician steals, at least he/she gets things done), getting rid of corruption isn’t going to be an easy task. I sometimes think people assume that once you’re elected president you can just tell everyone what to do and they simply do it! Here in Brazil, I don’t believe that anyone could become leader without playing the game at least a little. That doesn’t mean that you have to be corrupt yourself, but when corruption is as entrenched as it is here, its reduction/elimination must surely be a gradual process.
The scandals have come thick and fast during Dilma’s presidency and in each case she seems to have done a good job of effectively saying “you got caught, you’ve got to go”. And tellingly, nothing significant has stuck to her.
– He robs, but at least he gets things done.
– But surely to get things done is his duty?
– Sure, but there are politicians who rob and don’t get things done!
Labour Laws
You know when you read an article and it resonates so strongly that you want to punch the air and shout “YES!”? Well I had a moment like that recently when reading Época.
The editorial reported that Dilma was planning to shake up Brazil’s crippling and archaic labour laws. These laws, which date from the time of Getúlio Vargas (dictator and president between 1930-45), purport to protect workers’ rights. But back in the real world these laws are prohibitively restrictive and expensive. They make Brazil less competitive and, more importantly, they actually encourage informal employment arrangements in which workers have few or no rights!
Counter-intuitively, previous attempts to reform these laws have been scuppered/resisted by the trade unions, but the word is that this time one of the major unions is on board. That means that there is a realistic chance of success.
The article really nails the current situation – if your Portuguese is up to it, read the full text here. My favourite line says that the reforms would improve the situation of workers of osso e carne (flesh and blood), not workers who only exist on paper.
If Dilma can pull this off then I believe it will put Brazil in a position to thrive in the global marketplace. And I for one will allow myself a small whoop and maybe even a (dignified) holler!
Great post! I like Dilma because she’s a survivor, she’s smart, courageous, and she has a great voice. She has continued Lula’s emphasis on social programs that are designed to help the poor, and as you pointed out, she has not tolerated corruption in her administration. Eliminating corruption entirely from Brazilian politics is a difficult challenge, but the current trial over the “mensalão” scandal may actually help speed up the process.
With approval ratings in the 60% range, Dilma is a worthy successor to Lula. She faces greater economic challenges than he did, because of the worldwide slump, but she’s handling it well.
My question is, will Lula decide to make another run for the Presidency in 2014? If Dilma continues to be as popular as she is now, I doubt it, but you never know.
Thanks Phil – good points! :) I really do find it impressive that she has remained so popular. I think Lula had something like 70% approval when he left office – after 8 years that’s pretty amazing. For Dilma to come in and not look like a pale imitation was quite an achievement.
My wife and I were discussing this idea that Lula might come back. We both really hope that he doesn’t. I think he had his time and things have moved on. His ego is big enough that he’ll find it hard to resist, but for Brazil’s sake I hope he can resist the temptation.
I hope Lula stays as far away from politics as possible, he has stolen enough money from the Brazilian people.
He went from a factory worker to having a fortune of 2 Billion dollars and his son used to be a telephone operator until recently and now he owes 2 phones companies in the north of Brazil.
Great post by the way Tom, I also am liking Dilma’s administration, like you said, she kinda needs to play along, but she is sure making a push to rid as much corruption as possible and she is doing a great job so far.
Abracos
Ray
Thanks Ray – I hear you on Lula. There was so much pro-Lula propaganda not so long ago that some people would try to make out he could do no wrong. But whilst he may have had his hands in a lot of pockets, maybe one day we can look back and say that he was a necessary tool to get Brazil where they needed to go? – Woah, without meaning to, I realise that my last sentence could be summarised as rouba mas faz!
But hey, as long as he stays in the past tense then we can look forwards with optimism and appreciate that he left Brazil in a better place than it was when he came to power and he left Dilma to (hopefully) continue the much needed improvements.
Ray,
“He went from a factory worker to having a fortune of 2 Billion dollars”. A fortuna é de R$2 bilhoes, não $2 billion. Eu não estou dizendo que ele não tenha roubado, mas baseado só nesse número é só fazer as contas.
Lula foi presidente durante 8 anos, como presidente ele não precisava gastar 1 centavo do próprio dinheiro. Durante os 8 anos ele ganhou uma salário de R$14000,00 reais.
Fazendo as contas só em salários ele ganhou aproximadamente R$1,5 bilhão, se você adicionar 8 anos de juros sobre isso vc ja consegue chegar perto dos R$2 bilhoes.
Considerando que ele ja foi deputado federal por 4 anos, e trabalhou muitos anos como torneiro mecanico (que apesar de não ganhar muito,em qualquer fabrica no ABC ganha pelo menos R$3000 mensais), não dá pra imaginar que ele chegou a presidente com uma mão na frente e outra atrás.
Acho que o que ta falando mais alto pra você é o eterno preconceito paulistano contra nordestinos e sindicalistas.
Quanto ao filho dele, provavelmente deve ter roubado mesmo, mas ninguém escolhe a familia que tem.
Fui estupida, não prestei atenção e confundi bilhão com milhão. Se a fortuna é de R$2Bilhoes, realmente não tem justificativa.
“If Dilma can pull this off then I believe it will put Brazil in a position to thrive in the global marketplace. And I for one will allow myself a small whoop and maybe even a (dignified) holler!”
If that is the case then imagine how good it will feel to start providing more jobs afterwards.
On a side note: I just love “João e Luiza vão à Praia” . The early issues hold a special place in my heart (remember João telling Luiza to stop talking about silly novelas and instead get him a sandwich from the vendor pronto – classic João). Plus notice how they remove their Havaianas after leaving the beach. Class act.
If it happens (that I can start providing people with work – and I’m still working on a plan to this end) then it will be an amazing feeling.
Glad you enjoyed João e Luiza as much as me. But please, no spoilers! I haven’t go to the one about the Havaianas yet! ;)
I like Dilma too!
I hope she continues on in the next election. She’s been reasonably good, and I think it would do the country well to have her for a little longer in order for her to implement her strategic and pretty agressive programs.
I like hearing about her recent plans, they sound great! And I’ve also heard some rumblings on the front of immigration reform, about trying to make it easier for qualified foreigners to enter Brazil and help build the economy. If she does something with this, she’ll have my vote forever!
Ha ha! If she introduced voting for foreigners then she’d get my vote too! :D
Well, with most of the federal government on strike, I would not say all is super peachy with Dilma. I think she has a tough gig – Lula promised everyone the moon and now she has to be the one to break it to everyone that Brazil cannot afford the moon. I sure do not envy her!
Fair point Corinne :) I guess everyone felt it was something of a poisoned chalice from the outset and surely most of us have been surprised how (so far) things haven’t been that bad. But you’re right – I painted an overly rosy picture by glossing over the (not insignificant) problems.
Like you, I don’t envy her this job and I still think she’s doing it pretty well considering how early she is in her presidency and considering the challenges she faces. And it can’t help to have her old friend Lula back in the picture… When I compare the two, the thing I like most about Dilma is her lack of ego. Feels to me that Lula spent a lot of time generating hype where Dilma has quietly go on with the job.
“Feels to me that Lula spent a lot of time generating hype where Dilma has quietly go on with the job”
This reminds me of when João and Maria befriended a bicheiro who suffered from a lisp, plus crabs, and the three of them decided to open up a pawn shop in Rio’s red light district only to find trouble in, oops, sorry: there I go again almost giving away another wonderful J&M story (issue 4 btw – The Bicheiro with an Itch).
Oh, Maria was sitting in for Luiza during issue 4 due to the latter going to Minas Gerias to visit an uncle who lives in a leper colony where he works as a counselor (read issue 5 – “All Kinds of Tips from Tio Mineiro” – for that story).
Eri,
I have no problem with Nordestinos, my problem is with thieves.
Your math is wayyyyy off: 8 years times twelve months is 96 months, 96 months times R$14,000 equals R$1,344,000.00 and that is in the MILLION Real mark, not BILLION.
Do you understand the difference between MILLION and BILLION? Yeah, 3 zeros and a lot of “Cara de Pau”!!!
He is nothing but a thief and his baby boy, well, “Tal pai, tal filho”!!
And the only thing worse than knowing that he stole so much money from Brazil and is still walking as a free man, is to watch people like you, complacent and trying to defend the biggest corrupt politician Brazil ever saw.
Ray
Eu percebi o erro e comentei acima. E não to tentando defender ninguem, simplemente porque como disse acima, que não sei se roubou ou não.
Eu cometi o erro, porque não muito tempo atrás numa matéria da folha citaram o numero 2 milhões.
Mas acho que mereço sua resposta mal educada, afinal, melhor prestar atenção no que lê e escreve.
Eri,
Por favor, eu nao lhe dei uma resposta mal educada, simplesmente disse o que penso e nao lhe ofendi pessoamente. Disse apenas que lamento ver alguem defendendo o politico mais corrupto que o Brasil ja viu, isso nao e um ataque pessoal e muito menos uma falta de respeito.
Abraco
Ray
@ Phil
You wrote
“Great post! I like Dilma because she’s a survivor, she’s smart, courageous, and she has a great voice. She has continued Lula’s emphasis on social programs that are designed to help the poor,”
Let’s look at a bit of history.
Today’s Bolsa Familia is actually a continuation of the Bolsa Escola program which was conceptualized by an university professor teaching at Unicamp University located in Campinas, SP . This professor had ties to Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s PSDB opposition party. A few years later college professor Cristovão Buarque of the PT party part won the gubernatorial race for Brasilia(DF) and implemented said policies while governing the capital ..
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cristovam_Buarque
Soon after Fernando Henriue Cardoso won Brazil’s presidency and expanded the program across the country – regardless of opposition from Lula’s PT party which claimed it was cheap charity (despite it being used by one of their own governors: Cristovão Buarque – go figure).
So anyway a few years after Lula becomes president, and the funny (or predictable) thing is that after winning the presidency Lula’s party tries to get rid of the program altogether by replacing it with the Fome Zero project. This Fome Zero idea lacked planning and logistics; but to Lula’s credit it was as soon downgraded and Cardoso’s Bolsa Escola program was continued under the guise of Bolsa Familia.
http://pt.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bolsa_Fam%C3%ADlia
So notice that what actually helped Brazil get somewhere during these past two decades was Cardoso’s implementation of many intelligent ideas ( think Plano Real in addition to Bolsa Escola)) and his perseverence in sticking with them. Lula did nothing more than keep his party from destroying said policies while expanding their reach thanks to funds provided by a surge in prices of commodities that Brazil’s efficient agricultural and mining sector produces, and China is keen on buying.
During Lula’s eight years occupying the presidency he did nothing to tackle challenges that Cardoso was unable to solve – thanks in great part to Lula’s and his parties then obstruction to change. Later Lula in power decided to take advantage of economic factors that benefitted Brazil, and hence his popularity as president, without sacrificing an inch of his political capital to overturn idiotic and detrimential legislation like Brazilian labor laws. Lula spent 8 years on vacation on a generous budget, and DID NOT DO A THING to implement policies ( or get rid of policies) to keep that prosperity running.
@Gritty:
Thanks for your reply. I didn’t intend to diminish the importance of any of the policies that were implemented during FHC’s two terms as President. I agree with you that his Plano Real was of crucial importance. Although I’ve read FHC’s fascinating book “The Accidental President of Brazil: A Memoir,” I’m certainly not an expert on Brazil’s political history, and was simply expressing my opinion about Dilma.
There may have been a better way for me to phrase my statement about both Dilma and Lula focusing on programs that help the poor. For the record, I didn’t attribute the creation of these programs to either of them.
@ Phil,
I sure hope my reply wasn’t taken personally. What gets to me is how Lula and his party obstructed so many important policies that would have benefitted Brazil, to later adopt those exact same policies when in power. And instead of admiting their mistakes they even tried to take credit for the idea (these people have no class whatsoever)
One of the policies implemented by Cardoso, which in my opinion did the most to help the poor in the long run, was FUNDEF. This was a fund created to finance public schools and which changed the dynamics of how resources were channelled: the old system had the government tranfering money to municipalities and they would in turn invest a mandated percentage on education. The thing is many mayors used these resources to their own benefit. One scam was to build a road whose contruction would always contemplate allies and their companies, and have a small part of said road run in front of a school. In doing this valuable funds were diverted away from educating students whose sole schooling option rested upon public education. Cardoso’s FUNDEF simply sent those funds straight to the school, bypassing city hall. Well you can imagine the hell it was to aprove this in congress since so many powerful interests would lose out. Lula and PT VOTED AGAINST FUNDEF; yet when taking power those clowns simply renamed it FUNDEB and expanded the exact same program they tried to sabotage before without any regard to the millions of underprivileged pupils Fundef could help.
I could go on and on about Lula and his party going against the interests of those most in need; but that would take forever. Unfortunately due to Lula’s humble origin a myth was created about him, and even the BBC fell for it. Notice how the bubbling BBC reporter below carries every false assumption about Cardoso under the sun.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52fQv9Y1shg
The truth though is that Lula copied and continued Cardoso’s policies and had the financial resources to do so thanks to Cardoso stabilizing Brazil’s economy – which also took unpopular measures , that PT also tried to sabotage (surprise surprise). PT even voted against the fiscal responsibility act (Lei da Responsabilidade Fiscal) which is the legal framework and backbone of the fiscal sanity provided by the Real Plan – which got rid of hyperinflation, among other things. And notice that I’m only mentioning policy that Cardoso was able to pass regardless of this irrational, and regarding Fundef, criminal opposition. Many great ideas unfortunately had a different fate and were killed by these people.
Now let’s move on to religion :-)
Hey Gritty,
No, I didn’t take your comments personally at all, and in fact found them to be both civil and informative. I replied because I wanted to acknowledge that FHC’s contributions were huge and set the stage for what followed.
I am still learning about Brazil’s history, including its recent political history, and I know that my own biases influence my opinions. For instance, the fact that Dilma suffered under the dictatorship predisposed me to like her, which is not a rational response, but an emotional one. Plus, I really do like her speaking voice! :)
As for Lula, my guess is that the truth lies somewhere between the extremes. Here in the US, we tend to deify or demonize our presidents, usually based on our political party affiliation. So while I admire FDR, JFK, Clinton, and Obama, my Republican friends prefer Eisenhower, Reagan, and the Bushes. But the truth is that all of these presidents, even the ones I’m not too fond of, contributed *something* of value during their time in office.
The picture Tom posted, if I’m not mistaken, is of Dilma being questioned in a military tribunal. Again context is important here. Dilma was arrested because she provided logistal assistance (her own words here) to freedom fighter or terrorists (pick your cup of tea) that robbed banks and comitted other acts of violence in order to obtain money or simply counter Brazil’s then military government. The thing is Brazil’s military took power by overthrowing then socialist president Joâo Goulart arguing that he allowed things to get out of control since these terrorist groups were already acting out – this during democratic rule, hence terrorist. Since said plots were carried out before Goulart’s demise – to destabilise Goulart’s own left leaning government which they thought to be too soft – it is argued that Dilma’s guerillha group had no intention of following democratic rule. In fact they thought democracy was a tool used by the so called ruling class to implement their interests ( which, let’s face it, can be the case since Lula did everything to further civil servants demands of pay raises and obscene perks when he was in power; but hey that’s okay: I guess Brazilian civil servants, albeit well paid by any standard, are oppressed people ). Anyway I would consider that the reason the individuals featured in the pic Tom posted are covering their faces is due to fear of reprimand from those guerrilha groups. If someone took a picture of a young cadet that was captured by Dilma’s group, and Dilma herself was deciding the outcome of that soldier’s life while someone took a picture then I am sure she would do the same thing: cover her face for fear of reprisal.
History is not black and white: Brazil’s military junta was not a pristine institution, neither were the groups that fought against them ( many argue they were far, far worse when it came to understanding the virtues of democratic rule).
By the way, I thought that the BBC reporter in that clip was argumentative to the point of being almost disrespectful, and he also interrupted way too much. FHC was poised and calm throughout, to his credit :)
Regardless of the political beliefs that Dilma held in the 1960s, the fact remains that she was arrested, imprisoned, and tortured by the military dictatorship. I realize that the Brazilian military dictatorship is considered to be less oppressive and harsh than dictatorships in Chile or Argentina, for example, but still, torture is torture. Those who inflict torture may feel it is justified to preserve security or stability, but the victims and their supporters do not usually share this view.
Political perception is as much about symbols as it is about substance. Dilma didn’t make her arrest and torture a centerpiece of her campaign, but for some outsiders like me, and I suspect, for some Brazilians, the symbolism of those events was powerful.
You raise a very good point about why her interrogators may be covering their faces, but one would think that under those circumstances, no camera would have been allowed in the courtroom at all.
I agree completely with your statement that “History is not black and white,” which is why it’s impossible to arrive at some sort of absolute, objective, final truth. All we can do is to assemble the best information currently available, and then reach some sort of conclusion, which in my case, at any rate, is admittedly influenced by my own biases.
Wow everyone! Now I know why they say you shouldn’t discuss politics or religion at dinner parties! So, who’s up for a discussion on the Catholic church and its influence on Brazilian society? ;)
Hey Tom, I’ve always hated that old saying about not discussing politics or religion at dinner parties! I wish more Americans took as active an interest in our own domestic politics as some of the commenters here have in Brazilian politics. Lively, even heated, exchanges about politics are crucial to a healthy democracy.
But I think I could probably resist commenting on the role of the Catholic church in Brazilian society :)
Ha ha! Nice one Phil. I actually really enjoy a lively discussion. And it’s my observation that while people often find it hard to concede a point at the time of the discussion, you can often see that they alter their views / attitudes in future as a result.
I often feel on very shaky ground when I write about Brazil. There is so much I don’t know about this country that I try to present everything with a overriding sense of “here’s what it looks like to me, but be sure to let me know if you disagree”. It’s a great way for me to learn, though like any other source, I’ve learned that opinions rarely come from an entirely neutral political standpoint…
And yes, let’s leave religion for another day ;)
The e-mail circulating on the Internet stating that Lula is a billionaire is fake. And yes, his son’s startup got an angel investor (only because his father is Lula), but now the startup is going broke and he is again middle class. And Lula could have chosen a corrupt General Prosecutor in order to stop any investigation, but he didn’t. In Brazil, be very careful and critic about you read in the press.