By Claudio Campuzano SPECIAL TO WORLD TRIBUNE.COM

November 3, 2002

More than one hundred million Brazilians went to the polls on Oct.27 and for the first time in the country's history they chose as president the working-class candidate of a leftist party. How many times have you read this in the past week?

Read now this alternative description of what happened.

More than one hundred million Brazilians went to the polls on Oct. 27 and, over the opaque government-sponsored, centrist candidate, chose as president a charismatic leader who, during his campaign, had moved to the center, away from his party's left.

The "working-class" tag hung on Luiz Inácio da Silva, universally known as Lula, is meant to denote his humble origins as a tapioca salesman and lathe operator, the equivalent of an American politician's log cabin. But 56-year-old Lula has not punched a factory's time clock in the last three decades. Since 1975 he is a full-time, salaried union president. He has been a member of the federal Chamber of Deputies and has run, unsuccessfully, for the governorship of São Paulo (once) and for the presidency (three times). He lives in one of three apartments he owns in São Bernardo do Campo, a nice middle-class suburb of São Paulo, and owns a weekend property.

In other words, as a top labor union official and regular player in state and national elections, Lula has been recognized for the last quarter-century as a full member of Brazil's political establishment as much as José Serra, the candidate of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso's centrist coalition he trounced in the runoff election by wining 61 percent of the vote.

We said here before that Brazil would not vote for candidate of the hard left. It didn't. A majority of Brazilians voted for a Lula that had moved to the center, but not equally so for a patently leftist Workers' Party (PT) which has not showed signs of following the same path-at least not yet.

"Lula's candidacy was much bigger than the party," said Benicio Schmidt, a political scientist in Brasilia, the capital. "His support didn't revert to candidates in the states."

Indeed, despite Lula's overwhelming personal victory, his Workers' Party fared poorly in state elections, taking just three of 27 gubernatorial races. It faces opposition governments in economically powerful Minas Gerais and in São Paulo, Brazil's richest and most populous state-where Lula launched his political career-and a governor from the PT lost his bid for reelection in Rio Grande do Sul state, long a showcase for the Workers Party, and whose exports play a major role in Brazil's economy.

These are three of the four states in Brazil with the largest population (the other is Rio de Janeiro, whose main business is tourism). And Brazíl is the only truly federal country in South America. It was a moratorium on interest payments decreed by Minas Gerais's governor that sparked the currency crisis that forced Brazil to abandon its crawling peg in favor of a floating exchange rate in 1999-and half a dozen of the states have called for a reduction in debt payments to Brasilia.

In São Paulo, for example, Lula gathered slightly over 11 million votes and Serra almost 9 millon, but the figures were inverted in the governorship race, in which the WP's candidate got around 8.5 million votes against almost 12 million that went to the winning candidate from Serra's party, the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB).

The same phenomenon could be seen in almost all of Brazil. The flip side of Lula's overwhelming victory was an equally ovrewhelming defeat of the PT in the state elections. The party could only get reelected one of its eight candidates that were seeking a second period, in Mato Grosso do Sul. In all, it gained governors in three states (Piaui and Acre were the other two) of scarce political weight and modest electorates-a total of 3.6 million voters, 3 percent of the national electorate.

The PSDB, that the PT is labeling as the "great loser" of the election, gained governorships in seven states, among them the most important in the nation, whose electorates add up to more than 52 million votes, almost half of the national total. And the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party (PMDB), the PSDB's only formal ally in the election, obtained another five governorships, in states where 24 million Brazilians live.

Furthermore, voters were very careful in leaving the Workers' Party far away from having a majority in either house of Congress. In both they would need, at a minimum, the votes of two parties with large blocs to have their proposals approved.

The significance of this voters' message has been well understood by the PT's president, José Dirceu, even before the final results of the second round were known.

"The left is the route for the PT," he said, "but Brazil voted for alliances and the party put together a center-left alliance. Therefore, it is necessary to respect the nation's will."

With a small minority in Congress, Lula will have to put together a coalition government. This is already being resisted by many in his party (Lula has moved to the center but the rank and file as well as the intermediate officials of the PT have not) and by the powerful and more-to-the-left so-called Landless Movement that helped elect him.

In choosing Lula, Brazilians believed in the political pilgrimage to the center he completed with his presidential campaign. What gives credence to it is that, like current president Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Lula is, above all, a product of São Paulo, Brazil's capitalistic enclave-the place that attracts those who want to forge their own destiny. Nowhere else in Brazil are there as many opportunities, so much social mobility and the high degree of discrimination rejection that is necessary to allow someone to raise himself, in a little over 50 years and without running into any insurmountable obstacle, through the whole spectrum of social classes, from one extreme to the other.

It was this that the Brazilian electorate elevated to the presidency of the nation, not class war, intolerance or anti-capitalism, which it carefully put aside with its measured and thoughtful vote.

It is being said in Brazil that, at the time when Brazilians were looking for a new departure, what happened is that a lackluster José Serra, with nothing new to offer, lost to a charismatic Lula who suggested new approaches to socio-economic concerns and who succeded because he chose to bet on pragmatism and abandon the traditional dogmas of his party.

Many ask whether Lula is the old wolf in sheep's clothing. But if he were, one way of helping him to keep this clothing on is for the opposition he faces in major states' governments and in Congress to be constructive and cooperate with him in achieving the social and economic goals he set for Brazil.

Claudio Campuzano (claudio-campuzano@hotmail.com) is U.S, correspondent for the Latin American newsweekly Tiempos del Mundo and editorial page editor of the New York daily Noticias del Mundo. He writes weekly for World Tribune.com

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.