Lula rules out third term
Lula has ruled out changing the electoral rules to allow him to run for a third term.
"When a political leader begins to think he is indispensable, and cannot be substituted, a little dictatorship is born," Lula said in an interview in O Estado de S.Paulo newspaper on Sunday.Good decision. Good reason.
Labels: Brazil, democracy, latinamerica |
26 comments:
Classy Lula. I agree he's made a smart, shrewd move.
Notable choice of reasoning, tends to make me believe he's trying to take a subtle jab at Chavez. Sort of reinforces that they are not the same brand of populism and it's fundamentally incorrect to categorize them as such. As a LAC scholar has it bothered anyone else that many times the left of Chile and Brazil is often likened to the left of Bolivia, Nicaragua and Venezuela?
hojas,
I usually see these comparisons in the U.S. Media and political blogs, by people that are usually not well informed. I've have also noticed some columnist in English newspapers with some crazy notion about a leftist tide lead by Chavez. The Economist is an exception, they seem well informed about matters in this part of the world...
I also agree that his statement could be construed as a subtle jab at Chavez...I hope that our good friend, leftside is reading this...
I'd argue it isn't just a jab at Chavez. It's certainly a jab at Uribe as well.
I'd argue it's also a jab at other presidents in the region (past, present and future) who try to change the rules in the middle of the game so they can stay around longer. My guess is Lula intended for this quote to go beyond the issue of the moment.
I'd love to see what Justin would say if Bush re-wrote the US Constitution so that he could serve indefinitely.
Was it also a jab at Cardoso, who doubled his term with the applause of Washington and the IMF?
What is to say 2 terms is ok and 3 is a small dictatorship? Something tells me if Lula had a more successful Presidency, he might consider things differently. As it is, he certainlly is not seen as indispensible by even anyone in his own party. I hope this changes by the way, but he better get moving...
Lula will, of course, work night and day to get his hand-picked successor elected. But we are to believe this sort of thing is qualitatively different than running for re-election himself. He has even said he'd go outside the PT to find a successor. Have the petistas (PT activists) abandoned him that much??
The most democratic thing is to allow the people to have the maximum choice. Term limits are thereby anti-democratic. Term limits are a must in the United States because of the way we fund our campaigns and the natural advantage incumbants tehrefore have. In Brazil and Venezuela, this is a much lesser problem. Though you must watch out for patronage...
Boz,
Only Lula knows what his intentions are in terms of jabs at either Chavez or Uribe, but last time I looked, Uribe hasn't been putting himself up for Presi for life...
A jab at Cardoso would make sense if Lula had not run for reëlection. The fact that he ran for reëlection merely shows that he has an understanding of latin American history far greater than his formal education indicates.
Make that the fact that he ran for reëlection and made that comment shows that he has an understanding of Latin American history far greater than his formal education indicates.
leftside said: "Was it also a jab at Cardoso, who doubled his term with the applause of Washington and the IMF?"
I believe so. Someone on PT made that exact point explicitally, i.e., that FHC changed the rules after he got elected (by buying off half of congress, incidentally).
"As it is, he certainlly is not seen as indispensible by even anyone in his own party."
Quite to the contrary. After the mensalão scandals, PT imploded. It currently has no viable candidate for Lula's job (to the extent that Ciro Gomes, from PPS, is often mooted as his anointed successor). Besides, Lula consistently got a far greater share of the vote than other PT candidates; poor people tend to identify with him far more than with his party. On a purely practical level, were him to run for a third term, he would probably win, while any PT candidate I can think of would have a far harder time.
"Term limits are a must in the United States because of the way we fund our campaigns and the natural advantage incumbants tehrefore have. In Brazil and Venezuela, this is a much lesser problem"
It is hard to overstate the power of incumbency in LA. It is far more significant than in the US. As election day approaches, officials up for reelection go on spending binges, and all sorts of goodies come out of the hat. E.g., Kirchner's energy policy and FHC's and Menem's exchange rate populism.
At least in Brazil, only rarely governors and mayors do not get reelected, unless they are a complete disaster.
What you could use in the US, IMHO, is congressional term limits, or (ideally) more competitive congressional districts. From what I read gerrymandering has rendered most districts into Rorsarch blots.
I don't know the numbers on seniority for the US House of Representatives, but here are
In office since before 1960: 1/100
Robert Byrd, West Virginia (D) - 1959
In office since before 1970: 4/100
Ted Kennedy, Massachusetts (D) - 1962
Daniel Inouye, Hawaii (D) - 1963
Ted Stevens, Alaska (R) - 1968
In office since before 1980: 13/100
In office since before 1990" 30/100
should have said "here is a list of the longest serving US Senators"
Bruno, thanks for your comments, but I have to disagree with a couple things.
First off, while it is true there is no annointed PT successor and this makes many petistas nervous from a practical standpoint, I still think the majority of party activists (those that haven't been kicked out for disobedience) are fine with the notion of a new start that builds on Lula's legacy but learns from the mistakes and trepidations. Whether that leader is a PT member or not, I doubt the left much cares any more. The PT has lost its role as a uniquely uncorruptable, principled party. The left (and most petistas) in Brazil are dissatisfied and actually quite depressed, according to reports I've read.
Second, while I acknowledged patronage and clientismo come election time, I maintain that the problem of an entrenched incumbancy is far more or a problem in the US political system than Brazil (or Venezuela). In Brazil, on average, more than 50% of legislators to not return to their posts. I beleive the figure in the US is above 90%. Venezuela, of course, has swept aside most of the old power bosses.
leftside, the entrenched incumbancy problem you mention is what I had in mind in my second comment. Non-competitve elections seems to be a serious problem in the US HoR, largerly because of gerrymandering. As Frank pointed out, this particular problem doesn't occur in the US Senate, since all electors in a state can vote in the same election; nor (by extension) this problem exist for the elected executive. Thus, to return to m original topic, in most US presidential elections that I remember, the winner was only known on election day (or, once, well afterwards ;-). In contrast, in most LA countries recently, reelections have been a shoo-in.
As for PT, the mood there now is quite despondent, specially since many of its leaders have just been indicted in connection to the mensalão scandal (watching our supreme court hearings has become a national pastime this week). PT is now totally dependent on Lula, who is way more popular than the party.
The lack of a viable candidate is something petistas worry about a lot. The PSDB, on the other hand, worries (vocally) that Lula might go for a 3rd term, because he would probably get away with it and get re-elected. But as Boz pointed out, and I agree, Lula to his great credit has ruled it out.
Prognosis is hard, but my best guess is that the front runner as Lula's sucessor is currently JOsé Serra (PSDB, governor of SP); Aécio Neves (PSDB, gov. os Minas Gerais) will find it hard to wrestle the nomination from Serra now. On the left, Ciro Gomes may be a strong contender if Lula supports him, but that will be a hard sell for PT. On PT itself, two possible candidates are Patrus Ananias (good guy, I voted for him a couple of times; of all the people I mention he is my favorite) and Dilma Roussef; but both lack name recognition or a significant political base of their own.
I've always believed that the PT needs Lula a lot more than he needs them.
Randy, I suppose you probably had the opportunity to talk to petistas (especially in Belo Horizonte ;-); most will readily admit it. PT enjoys significant popular support (i.e., it wins elections) mostly in São Paulo, Minas Gerais and in the South. Historically, it barely registered in the northeast. Lula, however, is wildly popular in the northeast (and this is no hyperbole, he walks on water as far as most nordestinos are concerned). PT's stature as a true national party, and thus its electoral viability, is based on the personal connection mostly poor people outside the (relatively) rich south-southeast have with Lula. Without him, PT would revert to its former role in the 90s, as sort of perpetual opposition.
I hope the PT is not losing sight of the local and municipal levels. It is there where it made it's mark - in the South mostly - largely as a result of their highly innovative system of local governing calling participatory budgeting. Maybe they are better as an independent, oppositional force at the national level, keeping the other socialist parties honest.
leftside, 'orçamento participativo' is IMO one of PT's two greatest innovations (the other being 'bolsa escola', whereby families got a small stipend as long as their children stayed in school).
OP has grown from a small consultive role into running a significant fraction of the municipal budget in Porto Alegre and Belo Horizonte. It is reasonably efficient, genuinely participatory and non-politicized. In some ways, it is a very 'Web 2.0' thing, in the sense that it is able to draw upon the diffuse knowledge of the local population.
In Belo Horizonte (my home town!), it is now possible participate online (altough not as fully, as of yet, as in the offline version; the budgets are kept separate as well).
You may have read it already, but this .pdf (in english) is quite informative on OP in general.
As for PT, one thing that I do find worrying is that the party's membership has grown considerably in the Lula years; on principle of course there is nothing wrong with that. But there are strong indications that at least some of the new members joined not for ideological affinity but instead to get a share of the loot. Political parties in power in Brazil tend to attract this sort of creep; yet another thing in which we hoped PT would be different but wasn't (to a sufficient degree; it is still no PFL). In that sense, perhaps it will be good for PT to return to the opposition and lose some weight.
Well, bolsa escola was developed by Cristovam Buarque, arguably one of the finest minds in the history of the PT.
What was even more important was Cardoso's federalizing the bolsa escola. I could imagine that in some states (Piaui comes to mind) it would have been difficult to implement the bolsa escola. Making it a nationwide project was important.
Anything that keeps young children in school and out of the workplace is important.
Bruno, a quick question: Cruzeiro or Atlético?
Randy, Gaaaaalooooo!
And yes, CB is a great guy; I voted for him in the first turn of the last presidential elections. FHC did good to adopt his program, and so did Lula in expanding it into Bolsa Família
Randy, Gaaaaalooooo!
No one's perfect. Sou Cruzeirense.
A jab at Uribe? Is he talking about a third term?
I asked a friend who is a well known scholar of Brazilian politics why this question of a potential third term even came up. He said that the opposition was trying to paint Lula as a Chavez-wannabe and Lula felt a need to respond.
I don't think Lula has ever seriously intended on three terms. He was quite happy, however, to seek a second term, with Carsdoso having paved the way.
Uribe was considering a third term and his supporters were floating the idea in Congress. However, he announced last week (after I wrote that comment) that he would not seek a third term.
You may be right and this may be all about domestic politics for Lula, but I think he's aware of his international presence when he makes statements like that.
Post a Comment