FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail

Why Dilma Rousseff Could Still Win Brazil’s Election

When challenger Marina Silva pulled ahead of incumbent Brazilian President Dilma Rousseff in the polls a few weeks ago there was a lot of excitement here in Washington, in the business press, and Brazilian financial markets. Rousseff’s Workers’ Party (PT) has been in power for 12 years, and a lot of rich and powerful people – North and South – were ready for a change. Fortune seemed to favor them: the Brazilian economy, having slowed considerably over the past few years, officially went into recession this year — something that would spell the end for many incumbent presidents. Before that, there were street protests over the rising cost of public transport and government spending on the World Cup, and the games themselves had ended in disaster with a humiliating 7-1 defeat for Brazil at the hands of Germany.

Yet Dilma has bounced back from every blow and now looks poised to place first in both the first and second rounds of the election. How does this happen?

If Dilma Rousseff is re-elected, it could be because the majority of Brazilians are looking at the 12 year record of the Workers’ Party and, for those old or literate enough to remember, comparing this to the past. For the vast majority, the changes [PDF] are quite striking.

Despite the slowdown of the past few years and the 2009 world recession, Brazil’s GDP per person grew by an average of 2.5 percent annually from 2003-2014. This was more than three times the growth rate during the preceding two terms of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who implemented “Washington Consensus” policies and remains a much-preferred statesman in the U.S. capital. (Before Cardoso there was a decade and a half of even worse economic failure, during which Washington had even more influence on economic policy, and income per person actually fell.)

This return to growth, plus the government’s use of increased revenues to boost social spending, has reduced Brazil’s poverty rate by 55 percent and extreme poverty by 65 percent. For those in extreme poverty, the government’s internationally renowned conditional cash transfer program (Bolsa Familia) provided 60 percent of their income in 2011, up from 10 percent in 2003. A hefty increase in the minimum wage – 84 percent since 2003 after adjusting for inflation – also helped quite a bit.

Unemployment has fallen to a record low of 4.9 percent; it was 12.3 percent when Lula da Silva took office in 2003. The quality of jobs has also increased: the percentage of workers stuck in the informal sector of the economy shrank from 22 to 13 percent.

Brazil’s income distribution remains one of the more unequal in the world, but there was significant progress here too. From 2003-2012, the 40 percent of the population just below the median nearly doubled their share of the country’s income gains, as compared to the prior decade. This came at the expense of the richest 10 percent.

The poor have most obviously benefitted from this transformation of the Brazilian economy, and this is reflected in the polls. But it is not just the poor who improved their well-being: with a median household income of only about $800, the vast majority of Brazilians were set to gain from the rising wages, shrinking unemployment, and significantly increased pensions that the last decade had brought.

From the elites–eye view, these gains that ordinary workers have made are not such good news. A new law that required full-time domestic workers – of which there are a lot in Brazil, thanks to its crushing inequality – to be treated as formal employees, with maximum work hours, minimum wages and social security, was the most recent annoyance for the “haves.”

A counter-narrative that Brazil under the PT is on the road to ruin has filled the media in Brazil – which is mostly against the government – and the international press. In this view, the economy has slowed because the government is not sufficiently “friendly” to business. Inflation (currently at the top of the target range at 6.5 percent) is too high, fueled by a labor market that is “too tight,” and the government needs to cut spending. And oh yes – please be more friendly to the United States and its highly unpopular foreign policy in the region; that was an opposition theme in the last election and it has been resurrected today.

The reality on economic policy is quite the reverse: in fact the government since the end of 2010 has listened to Big Finance a bit too much, raising interest rates and cutting spending when the economy was too weak. Hopefully these mistakes will not be repeated.

If Dilma wins, it will be because the majority of Brazilians got a lot of what they voted for. They may want more, and they should – but they are unlikely to opt for a return to the past.

Mark Weisbrot is an economist and co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research. He is co-author, with Dean Baker, of Social Security: the Phony Crisis.

This essay originally appeared in The Guardian

More articles by:
Weekend Edition
April 20, 2018
Friday - Sunday
Paul Street
Ruling Class Operatives Say the Darndest Things: On Devils Known and Not
Conn Hallinan
The Great Game Comes to Syria
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Mother of War
Andrew Levine
“How Come?” Questions
Doug Noble
A Tale of Two Atrocities: Douma and Gaza
Kenneth Surin
The Blight of Ukania
Howard Lisnoff
How James Comey Became the Strange New Hero of the Liberals
William Blum
Anti-Empire Report: Unseen Persons
Lawrence Davidson
Missiles Over Damascus
Patrick Cockburn
The Plight of the Yazidi of Afrin
Pete Dolack
Fooled Again? Trump Trade Policy Elevates Corporate Power
Stan Cox
For Climate Mobilization, Look to 1960s Vietnam Before Turning to 1940s America
William Hawes
Global Weirding
Dan Glazebrook
World War is Still in the Cards
Nick Pemberton
In Defense of Cardi B: Beyond Bourgeois PC Culture
Ishmael Reed
Hollywood’s Last Days?
Peter Certo
There Was Nothing Humanitarian About Our Strikes on Syria
Dean Baker
China’s “Currency Devaluation Game”
Ann Garrison
Why Don’t We All Vote to Commit International Crimes?
LEJ Rachell
The Baddest Black Power Artist You Never Heard Of
Lawrence Ware
All Hell Broke Out in Oklahoma
Franklin Lamb
Tehran’s Syria: Lebanon Colonization Project is Collapsing
Donny Swanson
Janus v. AFSCME: What’s It All About?
Will Podmore
Brexit and the Windrush Britons
Brian Saady
Boehner’s Marijuana Lobbying is Symptomatic of Special-Interest Problem
Julian Vigo
Google’s Delisting and Censorship of Information
Patrick Walker
Political Dynamite: Poor People’s Campaign and the Movement for a People’s Party
Fred Gardner
Medical Board to MDs: Emphasize Dangers of Marijuana
Rob Seimetz
We Must Stand In Solidarity With Eric Reid
Missy Comley Beattie
Remembering Barbara Bush
Wim Laven
Teaching Peace in a Time of Hate
Thomas Knapp
Freedom is Winning in the Encryption Arms Race
Mir Alikhan
There Won’t be Peace in Afghanistan Until There’s Peace in Kashmir
Robert Koehler
Playing War in Syria
Tamara Pearson
US Shootings: Gun Industry Killing More People Overseas
John Feffer
Trump’s Trade War is About Trump Not China
Morris Pearl
Why the Census Shouldn’t Ask About Citizenship
Ralph Nader
Bill Curry on the Move against Public Corruption
Josh Hoxie
Five Tax Myths Debunked
Leslie Mullin
Democratic Space in Adverse Times: Milestone at Haiti’s University of the Aristide Foundation
Louis Proyect
Syria and Neo-McCarthyism
Dean Baker
Finance 202 Meets Economics 101
Abel Cohen
Forget Gun Control, Try Bullet Control
Robert Fantina
“Damascus Time:” An Iranian Movie
David Yearsley
Bach and Taxes
FacebookTwitterGoogle+RedditEmail