Isabelle de Rezende World Press Review Brazil correspondent worldpress.org

The landslide victory of  Workers’ Party leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the October 2002 presidential election was widely regarded in Brazil as a historic event that confirms the country’s full transition to democracy.

“In less than two decades, Brazil made a phenomenal transition from a dictatorship to a left-wing government,” wrote Alexandre Oltramari and Maurício Lima in Veja (Oct. 28). And from Veja’s editorial: “Lula as president shows the world that democracy in Brazil, and in Latin America by association, is not merely exercised for the sake of appearances by elites who only seek to perpetuate their own power.”

In 1952, at the age of 7, Luiz Inácio (he later officially added “Lula” to his name) da Silva, his seven siblings, and their mother, Euridice, traveled 13 days on the back of a truck to São Paulo in search of their father, Aristides, and a better life. Aristides Inácio da Silva, meanwhile, had started another family, leaving Euridice alone to raise her children.

Commentators were struck by the improbability that a man of such humble origins, who never finished high school, let alone earned a university degree, would become the democratically elected president of one of the world’s largest countries and the premier economy of South America. “Brazilian democracy was not only closed off to left-wing politicians like Lula, but also to the bearded frogs of the lower classes who did not possess university degrees,” wrote Antônio Gonçalves Filho and Guilherme Evelin in Epoca (Nov. 4). “Lula was only allowed to come into the parlors of the great houses after it became clear, in the 2002 campaign, that no other would-be prince was capable of taking the daughter of the house out to the dance and seeing the waltz through without tripping.”

Earning 55 million votes, Lula won a clear mandate from an overwhelming number of Brazilians. Brazil has been in a recession, worsened by the “crisis of confidence” brought about by a flight of foreign capital as Lula began to rise in the polls over the summer. Lula has set himself the perhaps impossible task of reconciling the needs of the people with the disparate and contradictory needs of  “the market”—balancing budgets, making loan payments on schedule, and keeping inflation down (as demanded by the International Monetary Fund and the United States). So far, his program includes bringing back growth, strengthening Brazil’s economic independence, and feeding the hungry.

In an Oct. 29 article, O Estado de São Paulo’s Vera Rosa and Wilson Tosta remarked, “Lula struck a note of caution, recognizing that problems could not be resolved overnight, and speaking of ‘austerity.’ He cited the severity of the country’s problems, but made it clear that he would invest vigorously in social programs.” A Fôlha de São Paulo editorial (Oct. 29) suggested that the government must “reduce Brazil’s dependency on increasingly meager foreign investments,...guarantee the revalorization and/or stability of the currency, which in turn would help fight against inflation, and help bring back growth.”

The Bush administration, through its ambassador, Donna Hrinak, is counting on a good working relationship with Lula’s Brazil. Speaking to Veja (Nov. 6), Inter-American Dialogue’s Michael Shifter urged both Lula and Bush to keep the radicals in check. “In Brazil,” he added, “there are PT [Workers’ Party] members who hate the idea of having waited 20 years to govern, and now have to be the United States’ little friend.”

But only weeks before the first round of the election, Lula made several publicized overtures to the IMF and to Brazil’s business community, assuring them that in the event of his victory, Brazil would stand firm by its commitments and that no massive communist-style nationalizations were at hand. This paid off. Panic did not strike the market, as had been expected when Lula won.

“The focus of our foreign policy will be economic pragmatism. We have markets to conquer and tough negotiations ahead concerning the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas],” a top Lula adviser said to Veja (Oct. 28). “We are not going to create unnecessary ideological conflicts.” José Luis Fiori, writing in Carta Capital (Oct. 30) dared to dream: “Who knows, perhaps the time has come for Brazil to pursue national development along with a more democratic and inclusive society...that will come progressively closer to the welfare state of the Europeans.”

Isabelle de Rezende World Press Review Brazil correspondent worldpress.org

The landslide victory of  Workers’ Party leader Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the October 2002 presidential election was widely regarded in Brazil as a historic event that confirms the country’s full transition to democracy.

“In less than two decades, Brazil made a phenomenal transition from a dictatorship to a left-wing government,” wrote Alexandre Oltramari and Maurício Lima in Veja (Oct. 28). And from Veja’s editorial: “Lula as president shows the world that democracy in Brazil, and in Latin America by association, is not merely exercised for the sake of appearances by elites who only seek to perpetuate their own power.”

In 1952, at the age of 7, Luiz Inácio (he later officially added “Lula” to his name) da Silva, his seven siblings, and their mother, Euridice, traveled 13 days on the back of a truck to São Paulo in search of their father, Aristides, and a better life. Aristides Inácio da Silva, meanwhile, had started another family, leaving Euridice alone to raise her children.

Commentators were struck by the improbability that a man of such humble origins, who never finished high school, let alone earned a university degree, would become the democratically elected president of one of the world’s largest countries and the premier economy of South America. “Brazilian democracy was not only closed off to left-wing politicians like Lula, but also to the bearded frogs of the lower classes who did not possess university degrees,” wrote Antônio Gonçalves Filho and Guilherme Evelin in Epoca (Nov. 4). “Lula was only allowed to come into the parlors of the great houses after it became clear, in the 2002 campaign, that no other would-be prince was capable of taking the daughter of the house out to the dance and seeing the waltz through without tripping.”

Earning 55 million votes, Lula won a clear mandate from an overwhelming number of Brazilians. Brazil has been in a recession, worsened by the “crisis of confidence” brought about by a flight of foreign capital as Lula began to rise in the polls over the summer. Lula has set himself the perhaps impossible task of reconciling the needs of the people with the disparate and contradictory needs of  “the market”—balancing budgets, making loan payments on schedule, and keeping inflation down (as demanded by the International Monetary Fund and the United States). So far, his program includes bringing back growth, strengthening Brazil’s economic independence, and feeding the hungry.

In an Oct. 29 article, O Estado de São Paulo’s Vera Rosa and Wilson Tosta remarked, “Lula struck a note of caution, recognizing that problems could not be resolved overnight, and speaking of ‘austerity.’ He cited the severity of the country’s problems, but made it clear that he would invest vigorously in social programs.” A Fôlha de São Paulo editorial (Oct. 29) suggested that the government must “reduce Brazil’s dependency on increasingly meager foreign investments,...guarantee the revalorization and/or stability of the currency, which in turn would help fight against inflation, and help bring back growth.”

The Bush administration, through its ambassador, Donna Hrinak, is counting on a good working relationship with Lula’s Brazil. Speaking to Veja (Nov. 6), Inter-American Dialogue’s Michael Shifter urged both Lula and Bush to keep the radicals in check. “In Brazil,” he added, “there are PT [Workers’ Party] members who hate the idea of having waited 20 years to govern, and now have to be the United States’ little friend.”

But only weeks before the first round of the election, Lula made several publicized overtures to the IMF and to Brazil’s business community, assuring them that in the event of his victory, Brazil would stand firm by its commitments and that no massive communist-style nationalizations were at hand. This paid off. Panic did not strike the market, as had been expected when Lula won.

“The focus of our foreign policy will be economic pragmatism. We have markets to conquer and tough negotiations ahead concerning the FTAA [Free Trade Area of the Americas],” a top Lula adviser said to Veja (Oct. 28). “We are not going to create unnecessary ideological conflicts.” José Luis Fiori, writing in Carta Capital (Oct. 30) dared to dream: “Who knows, perhaps the time has come for Brazil to pursue national development along with a more democratic and inclusive society...that will come progressively closer to the welfare state of the Europeans.”

www.worldpress.org

At the newsstand in Brasilia, Oct. 28, 2002 (Photo: AFP).Frankfurt Frankfurter Rundschau (liberal), Sept 8: It is no surprise, but still a sensation: The Brazilian left, even though its candidate narrowly missed getting an absolute majority [in the first round of presidential elections], has still achieved a historical victory....[Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva] and his Workers’ Party have made a powerful shift toward the center. This now makes him a viable candidate for the middle class.

Milan Corriere Della Sera (centrist), Oct. 7: [We will see if], as Lula loves to say, “The country will choose its leader in a worker.” It seems that both in Brazil and abroad, people are recovering from their fear of the possible election of a former union activist. The first signal has been given from the financial markets. The real is no longer at its lowest value....The OK given to Lula by papers such as the Financial Times and The Economist is very important....[Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso] has already accepted his candidate’s failure and is ready to cooperate with Lula....A difficult balance for Lula, who will also need to keep friends in the most radical sectors of his own party and among those Brazilians who for decades have been waiting for change. —Rocco Cortoneo

Lima La República (left-wing), Oct. 8: Lula’s victory marks an important date for the continent, given that it is the first time in 40 years—since the election of Salvador Allende in Chile—that a socialist has won in Latin America. However, it needs to be pointed out that the model followed by Lula is closer to socialism in Spain under Felipe González than that of Allende.

Zurich Neue Zürcher Zeitung (conservative), Oct. 8: Brazil today—its government, economy, and society as a whole—is clearly on more solid ground than it was a decade ago. As president, Lula will not thoughtlessly risk what has been achieved so far....For now, however, although they cannot read the thoughts behind his bearded visage, Brazil's voters and Washington’s financial specialists are taking Lula at his word. They do not have much choice. —Andres Wysling

Warsaw Rzeczpospolita (centrist), Oct. 8: The fact that Lula was not elected in the first round proves that at the last moment Brazilians began to fear the consequences of his victory for the economy. The mere possibility of the victory of the former leader of São Paulo’s metal workers has caused an outflow of capital and a sudden drop in the local currency value in Brazil. Voters took their foot off the gas pedal to take time and rethink until Oct. 27.

São Paulo Carta Capital (liberal magazine), Oct. 10: [If Lula wins], one of the new government's first tasks will be to define Brazil's position regarding the Free Trade Agreement of the Americas....Whatever Brazil's next government decides, it will directly influence our progress as a nation. Either we will acquiesce to a perilous process of a dismantling of our national values...or we may be at the beginning of an era of positive political change. In the latter case, Brazil will escape from the illusion that it makes history without knowing it. —Celso Furtado

São Paulo Veja (centrist newsmagazine), Oct. 6: Brazil will continue to face hard times. No miracles are forthcoming. For these reasons, the man who will take over the helm of government in the Planalto Palace will have to display leadership qualities far greater than those demanded of a president in times of growth and prosperity. If Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva makes it to the Planalto Palace, Brazil may have one of the most accessible presidents in its history.

Ha’aretz (liberal), Tel Aviv, Israel, Jan. 4, 2003. analysts, regardless of ideology, think Lula will win....It is likely that Lula will be far more circumspect in his management of Brazil's fragile economy than in his handling of his country's relations with the American giant. The reason is simple: Resisting U.S. hegemony is one policy measure that would have near-universal support among Brazil's population.

London The Guardian (liberal), Sept. 20: In former times, a Lula victory would certainly have been viewed in Washington as a signal to push Brazil into outer darkness. But Brazil is Latin America’s largest economy, and its collapse, on top of Argentina's, could not be ignored. Washington may be forced to accept Lula—even to support him—for fear of something worse. —Isabel Hilton

São Paulo Istoé (liberal newsmagazine), Oct. 12: The prevailing political discourse in this election seems to be related to a school of thought that favors a new economic order and proposes the abandonment of neo-liberalism and the prescriptions of the Washington consensus....The enormous challenge, stemming from the rejection of Washington's dogmas, is to offer viable development alternatives without falling into the trap of yet another unrealistic plan, supposedly correct and applicable to all countries at all times.

Oslo Dagbladet (liberal), Oct. 8: What Lula can do for the poor if he becomes president is quite uncertain at the moment....No matter who wins [the next phase of the election], Brazil will most definitely get a government coalition of left and middle. This is clearly a historical shift to the left. It means that the forces that fought against the military dictatorship in the ’70s and ’80s are united again. With Brazil's significance, this shift will be felt over the whole of Latin America. —Einar Hagvaag

Paris L’Express (centrist newsmagazine), Oct. 10: Without profound reform, the world's ninth-largest economy will not succeed in becoming the giant it was meant to be....The task is enormous, on the same scale as the country, which is the largest, richest, and most populous in Latin America....Lula will not be equal to it—even if he receives two mandates in a row—but he is, by far, the best-placed man to establish the kind of social contract without which nothing else is possible. —Bernard Guetta

Barcelona La Vanguardia (centrist), Oct. 7: It has been a long time since an election in a Latin American country aroused so much interest in the world. This is in part explained by the marginalization of the left in these times of globalization. In fact, if Lula finally wins, he will become the first president who emerges from the anti-globalization movement.

Beijing Global Times (weekly magazine of People’s Daily), Oct. 10: Lula is robust and speaks in a coarse voice. He has always been the icon of laborers, and his opinions have been criticized as overly radical. So he lost three times in the previous campaigns. Now he has changed himself. He had his whiskers trimmed, took off his T-shirt, and put on a smart suit. People think that he is changing himself and that perhaps he will change the world. —Zhou Zhiwei

Mexico City Reforma (independent), Oct. 9: What type of president will Lula be? In his fourth presidential campaign, the perennial Brazilian leftist candidate has moderated his rhetoric, making it possible to obtain the vote of many centrists who are tired of the economic paralysis in their country. But only some years ago, Lula threatened, as Alan García did [in Peru], to impose a moratorium on Brazil's foreign debt payments and also promised major nationalizations. Will Lula be a moderate president like Ricardo Lagos [in Chile], or will he follow the radical path of Hugo Chávez [in Venezuela]? What happens to the Brazilian economy in the coming years will depend, to a large degree, on the answer to this question. —Sergio Sarmiento

By Shihoko Goto UPI Senior Business Correspondent www.washtimes.com

     WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 (UPI) -- U.S. officials continued to voice their support for Brazil's incoming president and talk up the country's economic prospects Tuesday, but despite such public optimism, wariness that Latin America's most populous and largest economy could falter continues to keep investors at bay. Top Stories • Israeli Labor ministers resign • Bush meets with Blix • Suspect probed in alien smuggling • Ventura mulls independent substitute • Romania moves ahead • Virginia referendum ties builders, politicians • Parents see tough moral rival in popular culture

     President-elect Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva "is not a (Fidel) Castro or a (Hugo) Chavez," said James Carragher, the State Department's director of Brazilian and Southern Cone Affairs, pointing out that unlike Lula, the Cuban and Venezuelan leaders by constitutionally questionable means.      "We would rather deal with a democratic government any day," he added, speaking as a panelist at a U.S.-Brazil relations conference hosted by the Center for Strategic and International Studies.      His comments echoed those from senior Bush administration officials, including Treasury Secretary Paul O'Neill, who welcomed Lula's victory, at least publicly. Yet, financial markets have reacted tepidly to the election of a new Brazilian leader, as the country's currency remains weak and the stock market continues to languish.      But former U.S. ambassador to Brazil Anthony Harrington brushed off Wall Street's fears that Lula's administration would default on its foreign debts and lead the country into bankruptcy, as has been the case of neighboring Argentina.      "Brazil is undervalued...I am very hopeful for what lies ahead, " Harrington said. He also pointed out that according to a recent U.S. Chamber of Commerce survey, Brazil is the most popular emerging market for U.S. investments, and most companies are likely to keep their investments in the country as the current rate.      To be sure, there is no doubt that the Brazilian Workers' Party leader struck a chord with the electorate, having won last weekend's election with over 60 percent of the votes cast. Lula's drive to become president is also undeniable, given that he had to try four times before finally winning the top spot.      At the same time, however, the former factory worker will be leading a country that struggles with $260 billion in public debt, while over 100 million people continue to live in dire poverty.      The question is how he will address the demands from the left and their social concerns on the one hand, and meet its financial obligations to investors on the other. Many analysts have pointed out that Brazil's public debts have reached unsustainable levels, and that the country will have no choice but to default, or at least considerably restructure, its debts.      Speculations of a debt default sooner or later has led foreign investors to flee Brazilian markets, which has slashed the value of the real by 40 percent in recent months, while interest rates on debts remain above a staggering 20 percent.      Lula himself has attacked the International Monetary Fund as well as the Bush administration earlier on in the campaign trail, suggesting that there was no need for Brazil to meet obligations imposed upon it. In August, the IMF promised to provide $30 billion to the country, the largest sum it has offered to any country at once. But the loans will not be disbursed until next year, when the IMF can better gauge how Lula's government will service its debts.      Harrington suggested that the IMF could consider rescheduling or indeed restructuring some of Brazil's loans, given that the new government will be under considerable pressure both internally and externally to meet high expectations.      "It's in our interest, both the United States and Brazil, for Lula to succeed," Harrington said, adding that there was "room for realism...to note the political and social circumstances of a struggling leader."      Certainly, domestic demand for reform will be just as high, if not higher than demands from Brazil's creditors. Addressing issues such as increasing the minimum wage will be critical for Lula's political success, but at the same time, such moves could hurt hamper Brazil's economic prospects, particularly in attracting foreign investors, who are often lured by the country's cheap labor costs.

By Ian Campbell UPI Chief Economics Correspondent www.washtimes.com

     His family was poor. He did not finish secondary school. He was a metal worker. In many respects Luiz Inacio da Silva, universally known as Lula, who is likely to win the presidency of Brazil later this month, reflects his countrymen far more than previous Brazilian presidents. The question is whether one of their own will do his poor countrymen any good. Top Stories • Congress approves resolution • Manassas killing was sniper • Democrats hit GOP on 'bumpy' economy • Motorists taking cover at filling stations • Stewart's new ads puzzling • Israelis rule out open trial • Heritage duo had right stuff

     Lula's left-wing politics reflect the harsh lives of ordinary Latin Americans. It is the current, outgoing Brazilian president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who is more typical of the region's leaders. An academic and author of a famous book on Latin American development before becoming a politician, Cardoso, a social democrat, hails from the educated minority that runs Latin America.      Most observers would judge that Cardoso did a goodish job as president. Inflation was slashed from thousands of percent to less than 10 percent. Some of the worst fiscal nonsense has been cleaned up, at the federal, state and even municipal level. The economy has grown, though no more than slowly. But the poverty of most Brazilians has not been eased; about that there can be no question.            That creates a problem. Who or what do we blame?            In the eyes of the poor, the conquest of inflation was something good, for high inflation tends to hurt the poor more than the financially sophisticated, dollar-rich rich, with their second homes in Miami and their stock accounts on Wall Street. But the poor would not judge that privatization and deregulation and opening up the economy to foreign trade have helped them. In the slums that surround the big cities or ascend the steep hills of Rio de Janeiro, and in the dirt poor countryside, grinding poverty prevails. What might Lula do about that?            There are ironies here.            Having taken 46 percent of the vote in the first round of the election Sunday, Lula appears poised for victory in the runoff Oct. 27 -- his fourth attempt to win the presidency. But in order to get to this point he has had to don a suit and tie and tone down his left-wing rhetoric and express his approval of some of those changes, such as privatization, from which the poor have so far drawn little benefit.            Soon it may be the poor, rather than the middle class, who are asking whether Lula's colors have changed.            But the deepest irony of all, and the most troubling, is that there is only one way for Lula to help the poor and that is to do what Cardoso did better -- just as Cardoso's chosen successor, Jose Serra, who faces Lula in the second round run-off, promises to do.            Many in Brazil and many critics of free markets outside Brazil blame "globalization" or the "Washington consensus" or "neo-liberalism" for the failure to improve the lot of the poor in Brazil and the rest of Latin America. What the critics tend to recommend are policies that, if suggested for domestic consumption in the United States or Europe, would generally be decried -- and with reason. Close off Brazil's markets, they say, so that local jobs can be protected against the might of foreign competition. But it's been done before, for decades, has never worked and helps more than anything else to explain why Latin America is where it is now.            The poverty of the region reflects protectionism, which was a by-product late in the 19th century of government tariffs on imports and, since World War II, a conscious policy tool. Protected markets, state monopolies, government industries: This was the way to develop, Latin America decided. What it led to was inefficiency, lack of competitiveness, small, weak economies, and, ugliest of all, corruption that enabled a small number to prosper from what wealth there was while the majority remained low-paid, uneducated, without opportunity: poor.      It is opportunity that the poor need. The way to bring it to them is to continue unraveling the entangling web woven in Latin America for at least decades and perhaps centuries.      The poor need the education Lula himself was denied. They need health care. These should be priorities for Lula. But to provide them will require government spending. And here we have the crunch seen traditionally as that between left and right but which, in reality, ought to unite both against privilege, special interests and corruption.      Brazil's government is permanently in deficit. It pays benefits, such as lucrative pensions, not to the poor but to wealthy people who have served as senior civil servants. The pensions deficit absorbs about 4 percent of GDP. The government is obliged permanently to issue debt at very high interest spreads on which investors and banks, mostly Brazilian ones, make very high profits. Brazil's bankers are not poor; some of them count among the world's richest citizens.      Lula would have the money to help the poor without causing the government's budget to explode or defaulting on debt, if he attacked the privileges the state grants to the rich, cut bureaucracy and unproductive jobs in the state sector, and stopped feeding excessive interest payments to banks because the state cannot get its finances in order.      By cutting Brazil's very high public spending, Lula could at last get fiscal finances under control. Interest spreads on government debt, which have climbed now to over 20 percent above the rates on U.S. Treasuries, because of the radical Lula's likely election success, could be slashed if Lula turned out to be a wise radical, one who spends government money where it is needed, not where it does no more than make the middle class still more comfortable.            Could Lula do this? He could, but it seems unlikely that he will. It is more likely that he will find he has no money to devote more to the poor and no will to cut away at the perquisites of the middle class.            And if he grows frustrated, simply spends more rather than spending better, then the market will quickly take fright, the debt will become unmanageable, and default and financial crisis and recession and currency collapse and inflation and worse poverty will follow, just as they have done in Argentina.            Lula is a man of the poor. His sincerity does not seem to be in doubt. His policies are. We do not expect him to help the poor but hope he does.      -0-      Comments to icampbell@upi.com.