FacebookTwitterRedditEmail

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:

bernie-the-sandernistas-cover-344x550

Weekend Edition
April 19, 2019
Friday - Sunday
Andrew Levine
What Will It Take For Trump to Get His Due?
Roy Eidelson
Is the American Psychological Association Addicted to Militarism and War?
Jeffrey St. Clair
Roaming Charges: Time is Blind, Man is Stupid
Joshua Frank
Top 20 Mueller Report “Findings”
Rob Urie
Why Russiagate Will Never Go Away
Paul Street
Stephen Moore Gets Something Right: It’s Capitalism vs. Democracy
Russell Mokhiber
Why Boeing and Its Executives Should be Prosecuted for Manslaughter
T.J. Coles
The Battle for Latin America: How the U.S. Helped Destroy the “Pink Tide”
Ron Jacobs
Ho Chi Minh City: Nguyen Thai Binh Street
Dean Baker
Fun Fictions in Economics
David Rosen
Trump’s One-Dimensional Gender Identity
Kenn Orphan
Notre Dame: We Have Always Belonged to Her
Robert Hunziker
The Blue Ocean Event and Collapsing Ecosystems
Theodore C. Van Alst, Jr.
Paddy Wagon
Brett Wilkins
Jimmy Carter: US ‘Most Warlike Nation in History of the World’
John W. Whitehead
From Jesus Christ to Julian Assange: When Dissidents Become Enemies of the State
Nick Pemberton
To Never Forget or Never Remember
Stephen Cooper
My Unforgettable College Stabbings
Louis Proyect
A Leftist Rejoinder to the “Capitalist Miracle”
Louisa Willcox
Aldo Leopold’s Land Ethic and the Need for a New Approach to Managing Wildlife
Brian Cloughley
Britain Shakes a Futile Fist and Germany Behaves Sensibly
Jessicah Pierre
A Revolutionary Idea to Close the Racial Wealth Divide
George Burchett
Revolutionary Journalism
Dan Bacher
U.S. Senate Confirms Oil Lobbyist David Bernhardt as Interior Secretary
Nicky Reid
The Strange Success of Russiagate
Chris Gilbert
Defending Venezuela: Two Approaches
Todd Larsen
The Planetary Cost of Amazon’s Convenience
Kelly Martin
How the White House is Spinning Earth Day
Nino Pagliccia
Cuba and Venezuela: Killing Two Birds With a Stone
Matthew Stevenson
Pacific Odyssey: Guadalcanal and Bloody Ridge, Solomon Islands
David Kattenburg
Trudeau’s Long Winter
Gary Olson
A Few Comments on the recent PBS Series: Reconstruction: America After the Civil War
Ellen Lindeen
What Does it Mean to Teach Peace?
Adewale Maye and Eileen Appelbaum
Paid Family and Medical Leave: a Bargain Even Low-Wage Workers Can Afford
Ramzy Baroud
War Versus Peace: Israel Has Decided and So Should We
Ann Garrison
Vets for Peace to Barbara Lee: Support Manning and Assange
Thomas Knapp
The Mueller Report Changed my Mind on Term Limits
Jill Richardson
Why is Going Green So Hard? Because the System Isn’t
Mallika Khanna
The Greenwashing of Earth Day
Arshad Khan
Do the Harmless Pangolins Have to Become Extinct?
Paul Armentano
Pushing Marijuana Legalization Across the Finish Line
B. R. Gowani
Surreal Realities: Pelosi, Maneka Gandhi, Pompeo, Trump
Paul Buhle
Using the Law to Build a Socialist Society
David Yearsley
Call Saul
Elliot Sperber
Ecology Over Economy 
FacebookTwitterRedditEmail