BRAZIL: THE MAIN ISSUES OF THE ELECTION

By Emir Sader and - - Reprint | | Print |

This column is available for visitors to the IPS website only for reading. Reproduction in print or electronic media is prohibited. Media interested in republishing may contact romacol@ips.org.

RIO DE JANEIRO, Oct 10 2006 (IPS) - Beyond the usual acrobatics of political debate, certain basic issues have been introduced into Brazil\’s current general election campaign. One of these is the size of the budget, where we see a clear distinction between the liberal platform of centre-right opposition candidate Geraldo Alckmin, current governor of Sao Paulo, who supports shrinking government and reining in public spending, and the current president\’s position of better spending without a commitment to its reduction, writes Emir Sader, a philosopher and co-ordinator of the Public Policy Laboratory of the University of the State of Rio de Janeiro, executive secretary of the Latin American Council on Social Sciences. In this article for IPS, Sader writes that another fundamental issue is Lula\’s making a top priority of regional integration policy, whereas Alckmin focuses on the FTAA and free-trade treaties, above all with the US. But Alckmin, who began his campaign promising a \’\’management shake-up\’\’ if he came to power with sharp cuts in public spending, inspired by the privatisation process he began in Sao Paulo, then agreed to sign a document committing himself to do no more privatisations, a direct contradiction of the repeated declarations of his primary economic advisors, backed by ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, that he would go ahead with the privatisation of the state oil giant Petrobras. What changed his mind? The evidence that all of the successes of the Lula government are tied to policies and programmes that strengthen the government\’s presence in the public sphere, like social welfare, health, and culture policies, among others.

Another fundamental issue is Lula’s making a top priority of regional integration policy –Mercosur, the South American Community of Nations, South-South alliances like those established with Indian and South Africa, the Group of 20. In contrast, Alckmin focuses on the Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) and free- trade treaties, above all with the United States, and stresses political and trade relations with countries at the core of capitalism. Last but not least is Lula’s commitment to strengthening state regulation, which Alckmin opposes in favour of extending the role of the market.

The entire debate unfolds in the context of the hegemony of the theories developed –in theory and practice– by political and economic liberalism. This ideology took root with seemingly uncontrollable and unparalleled force. The combination of the exhaustion of the second postwar expansion, which gave the state a central, active role and in Latin America stoked out-of-control inflation, and the demise of the Soviet Union, which seemed like the most radical model of state command economy, brought about the condemnation of the state. The state became the evil of the age, and was blamed for all ills: inflation, economic decline, the inefficiency of state industry, excess bureaucracy, inefficient public services, excessive bureaucracy, and corruption.

And thus the conclusion was: we need small government, less government, and more market, more privatisation, more private programmes for health and education, etcetera. For the last two or three decades, this refrain saturated the press.

All of a sudden, Alckmin reversed course. The candidate who began his campaign promising a ”management shake-up” if he came to power, which would involve a major retooling the state apparatus and sharp cuts in public spending, inspired by the privatisation process he began in Sao Paulo, now went on the defensive and agreed to sign a document committing himself to do no more privatisations. This was a direct contradiction of the repeated declarations of his primary economic advisors, backed by ex-President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, that he would go ahead with the privatisation of the state oil giant Petrobras.

And thus privatisation became a bad word. The government that had pushed for the sale of stock in Petrobras and that changed its name to Petrobrax in an attempt to scrub its identity as a state industry and prepare the way for its globalisation has now been repudiated by the candidate of the same bloc that ruled the country for eight years.

So what changed such that the state has been vindicated even by the conservative candidate? The evidence that all of the successes of the Lula government are tied to policies and programmes that strengthen the government’s presence in the public sphere, like social welfare, health, and culture policies, among others. Similarly foreign policy, which was the main area of difference between the Lula government and that of his predecessor Cardoso, lies in the processes of regional integration and inter- governmental alliances with countries of the South in which the state and not the market is the main actor, which would not be the case for free-trade treaties like the FTAA.

This is the real bottom line in these elections.(END/COPYRIGHT IPS)