Brazil, Brazil....the Brazilian elections of 2018
The recent Brazilian Presidential election, where the second round between hard-right populist Jair Bolsonaro from the Social Liberal Party (which in value terms is no longer social liberal at all, ever since Jair became its leader) and socialist Workers' Party candidate Fernando Haddad concluded two weeks after the Chamber of Deputies elections in Brazil, resulted in a decisive victory for Jair Bolsonaro, arguably Brazil's closest answer to Donald Trump.
Given the awful comments Jair Bolsonaro has made, his praising of torture and the infamous dictatorial era in Brazil, and his desire to raze the Amazon for development purposes, how did he do it?
1. He played the "anti-establishment" card when he was clearly anything but.
In the manner of Donald Trump in 2016, Jair Bolsonaro made hardline and controversial statements to make himself appear fresh compared to the Workers' Party (PT), perceived by some as corrupt and tired, especially after former President Luiz Inacio "Lula" de Silva, who was originally nominated by PT, was barred from standing because of a money laundering conviction for which he is currently serving a 9 1/2 year prison sentence. Lula was leading the presidential polls prior to being barred from standing by the Superior Electoral Court (of Brazil), and this gave Jair Bolsonaro the opportunity he needed.
Jair Bolsonaro's praising of the military regime of 1964 to 1985 made him stand out-for all the wrong reasons. He received his military training during the final years of that dictatorship, leaving with the rank of Captain, meaning he benefitted from the infamous regime. His support also mainly came from affluent southern states of Brazil, the big cities especially when he tapped into fears about rising gang crime in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, and small-medium business owners. He took advantage of the fact that Brazilian voters wanted some form of change from the current government and president (Michel Terner's approval ratings had dropped to 7%), even at the risk of choosing a worse alternative, and the controversial statements he made to capture media attention, especially his advocacy of shooting on sight and relaxation of gun control, strikingly similar to the outlook of Filipino president Rodrigo Duterte. This partly explains why turnout in the first round was as high as 79.7%, much higher than any recent US Presidential election, with turnout in the second round remaining high at 78.7%. By contrast, the US Presidential election of 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump attracted a turnout of 55.7%, although this election had only one round of voting compared to Brazil's and France's two rounds of voting; the French presidential election of 2017's turnout was 74.6%.
2. The Workers' Party chose a poor candidate with a reputation for incompetence.
Fernando Haddad, who was selected after Lula was barred from running, was formerly Mayor of Sao Paulo and his administration faced major protests, especially regarding transport and resulted in him leaving office with approval ratings of 14%, the lowest ever for a Mayor of Sao Paulo. He was roundly defeated in his re-election attempt for Mayor, polling just 17%
Prior to Lula's conviction and subsequent barring from the presidential race, Jair Bolsonaro was struggling to poll above 25% throughout the preceding months despite almost consistently ranking second in said polls, meaning had Lula been allowed to stand it is almost certain Jair would have lost. By contrast, Fernando was polling less than 10% in opinion polls whilst Lula was still PT candidate and even after his selection as replacement for Lula he never polled above 25%. In the final month of the campaign, Jair Bolsonaro's popularity rose sharply to the point where victory was likely rather than only a remote possibility.
The traditional opposition parties also made serious mistakes in their presidential campaigns; the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB)'s Geraldo Alckmin focused on attacking the campaign of Jair Bolsonaro rather than calling for a real change from the PT administration, which alienated a large proportion of PSDB's voter base, as did its support for the now extremely unpopular Michel Terner. Geraldo polled a miserable 4.8%, finishing 4th behind Ciro Gomes of the Democratic Labour Party who finished 3rd with 12.7%. This was the worst result in presidential history for the PSDB, which from 2002 to 2014 had always finished a good second and made the runoff, and it elected Fernando Cardoso as President of Brazil in 1994 and 1998 and without the need for a runoff. Ironically, the very same Geraldo Alckmin had achieved their best result in opposition (41.6%) just 12 years ago. Unsurprisingly given the reputation Michel Terner had acquired, his Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB)'s candidate, Henrique Merelles, fared disastrously, polling 1.2% and finishing 7th.
3. So many other parties were perceived as corrupt.
Corruption is a perennial problem in Brazilian politics, and in fact spans across the majority of Brazilian political parties, not merely PT as Jair Bolsonaro claimed. But because PT and other parties were in power, not the Social Liberal Party which Jair Bolsonaro was part of (and had taken over and transformed it into a national conservative party, causing many members to leave). The main opposition party, the Social Democracy Party, ranked as high as third in corruption complaints made against it amongst Brazilian political parties, with PT's former coalition partner, the Brazilian Democratic Movement (PMDB), most associated with outgoing President Michel Terner, ranking first in this respect. In 2014, the Social Liberal Party only won 8 seats in the Brazilian Congress,compared to PT's 69, and PMDB's 64. This time, under Jair, it won as many as 52 and topped the poll overall in the congressional elections; however due to the way congressional seats are distributed in Brazil the PSL won 4 fewer seats than PT, which won 56 (a loss of 13 compared to 2014). The size of Brazil and its diverse population means that coalition governments have to contain at least four parties in practice. It was overall conservative and liberal parties that the spoils went to in the congressional elections, with the Republican Party (liberal conservative) gaining 9 seats, Democrats (similar to Christian Union of the Netherlands in outlook) gaining 8 seats, the New Party a classical liberal party) entered with 8 seats, and Avante (a centrist party) gained 5 seats. By contrast, not only did the Workers' Party lose 13 seats, but the PMDB lost 32 seats, nearly half of its 2014 total, and the Social Democracy Party lost 25 of its 54 seats. Parties which supported unpopular "establishment" candidates for President lost heavily,like the Brazilian Labour Party (really centrist and somewhat social democratic) and the Republican Party of the Social Order, lost out considerably in this election.
Surprisingly, the Green Party of Brazil lost 4 seats, leaving it with only 4, and it lost its only Senate seat, despite not supporting Michel Terner and having supported the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, although this did cost it many urban supporters. The Sustainability Movement of Brazil, however, made famous by Marina de Silva won its first seat and as many as 5 senate seats.
What next for Brazil?
Jair Bolsonaro's plans for the Amazon rainforest, as well as his opposition to reserved lands for indigenous people in Brazil, are already the most worrying things about him internationally given how vital this rainforest is not only to Brazil, but also the entire world in terms of preventing global warming and acting as a key carbon sink. Domestically, his support for gun rights will have serious consequences; banning firearms possession, especially that of handguns, as the UK has done is a much better approach to tackling urban crime.
Given the awful comments Jair Bolsonaro has made, his praising of torture and the infamous dictatorial era in Brazil, and his desire to raze the Amazon for development purposes, how did he do it?
1. He played the "anti-establishment" card when he was clearly anything but.
In the manner of Donald Trump in 2016, Jair Bolsonaro made hardline and controversial statements to make himself appear fresh compared to the Workers' Party (PT), perceived by some as corrupt and tired, especially after former President Luiz Inacio "Lula" de Silva, who was originally nominated by PT, was barred from standing because of a money laundering conviction for which he is currently serving a 9 1/2 year prison sentence. Lula was leading the presidential polls prior to being barred from standing by the Superior Electoral Court (of Brazil), and this gave Jair Bolsonaro the opportunity he needed.
Jair Bolsonaro's praising of the military regime of 1964 to 1985 made him stand out-for all the wrong reasons. He received his military training during the final years of that dictatorship, leaving with the rank of Captain, meaning he benefitted from the infamous regime. His support also mainly came from affluent southern states of Brazil, the big cities especially when he tapped into fears about rising gang crime in Rio de Janeiro and Sao Paulo, and small-medium business owners. He took advantage of the fact that Brazilian voters wanted some form of change from the current government and president (Michel Terner's approval ratings had dropped to 7%), even at the risk of choosing a worse alternative, and the controversial statements he made to capture media attention, especially his advocacy of shooting on sight and relaxation of gun control, strikingly similar to the outlook of Filipino president Rodrigo Duterte. This partly explains why turnout in the first round was as high as 79.7%, much higher than any recent US Presidential election, with turnout in the second round remaining high at 78.7%. By contrast, the US Presidential election of 2016 between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump attracted a turnout of 55.7%, although this election had only one round of voting compared to Brazil's and France's two rounds of voting; the French presidential election of 2017's turnout was 74.6%.
2. The Workers' Party chose a poor candidate with a reputation for incompetence.
Fernando Haddad, who was selected after Lula was barred from running, was formerly Mayor of Sao Paulo and his administration faced major protests, especially regarding transport and resulted in him leaving office with approval ratings of 14%, the lowest ever for a Mayor of Sao Paulo. He was roundly defeated in his re-election attempt for Mayor, polling just 17%
Prior to Lula's conviction and subsequent barring from the presidential race, Jair Bolsonaro was struggling to poll above 25% throughout the preceding months despite almost consistently ranking second in said polls, meaning had Lula been allowed to stand it is almost certain Jair would have lost. By contrast, Fernando was polling less than 10% in opinion polls whilst Lula was still PT candidate and even after his selection as replacement for Lula he never polled above 25%. In the final month of the campaign, Jair Bolsonaro's popularity rose sharply to the point where victory was likely rather than only a remote possibility.
The traditional opposition parties also made serious mistakes in their presidential campaigns; the Brazilian Social Democracy Party (PSDB)'s Geraldo Alckmin focused on attacking the campaign of Jair Bolsonaro rather than calling for a real change from the PT administration, which alienated a large proportion of PSDB's voter base, as did its support for the now extremely unpopular Michel Terner. Geraldo polled a miserable 4.8%, finishing 4th behind Ciro Gomes of the Democratic Labour Party who finished 3rd with 12.7%. This was the worst result in presidential history for the PSDB, which from 2002 to 2014 had always finished a good second and made the runoff, and it elected Fernando Cardoso as President of Brazil in 1994 and 1998 and without the need for a runoff. Ironically, the very same Geraldo Alckmin had achieved their best result in opposition (41.6%) just 12 years ago. Unsurprisingly given the reputation Michel Terner had acquired, his Brazilian Democratic Movement (MDB)'s candidate, Henrique Merelles, fared disastrously, polling 1.2% and finishing 7th.
3. So many other parties were perceived as corrupt.
Corruption is a perennial problem in Brazilian politics, and in fact spans across the majority of Brazilian political parties, not merely PT as Jair Bolsonaro claimed. But because PT and other parties were in power, not the Social Liberal Party which Jair Bolsonaro was part of (and had taken over and transformed it into a national conservative party, causing many members to leave). The main opposition party, the Social Democracy Party, ranked as high as third in corruption complaints made against it amongst Brazilian political parties, with PT's former coalition partner, the Brazilian Democratic Movement (PMDB), most associated with outgoing President Michel Terner, ranking first in this respect. In 2014, the Social Liberal Party only won 8 seats in the Brazilian Congress,compared to PT's 69, and PMDB's 64. This time, under Jair, it won as many as 52 and topped the poll overall in the congressional elections; however due to the way congressional seats are distributed in Brazil the PSL won 4 fewer seats than PT, which won 56 (a loss of 13 compared to 2014). The size of Brazil and its diverse population means that coalition governments have to contain at least four parties in practice. It was overall conservative and liberal parties that the spoils went to in the congressional elections, with the Republican Party (liberal conservative) gaining 9 seats, Democrats (similar to Christian Union of the Netherlands in outlook) gaining 8 seats, the New Party a classical liberal party) entered with 8 seats, and Avante (a centrist party) gained 5 seats. By contrast, not only did the Workers' Party lose 13 seats, but the PMDB lost 32 seats, nearly half of its 2014 total, and the Social Democracy Party lost 25 of its 54 seats. Parties which supported unpopular "establishment" candidates for President lost heavily,like the Brazilian Labour Party (really centrist and somewhat social democratic) and the Republican Party of the Social Order, lost out considerably in this election.
Surprisingly, the Green Party of Brazil lost 4 seats, leaving it with only 4, and it lost its only Senate seat, despite not supporting Michel Terner and having supported the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, although this did cost it many urban supporters. The Sustainability Movement of Brazil, however, made famous by Marina de Silva won its first seat and as many as 5 senate seats.
What next for Brazil?
Jair Bolsonaro's plans for the Amazon rainforest, as well as his opposition to reserved lands for indigenous people in Brazil, are already the most worrying things about him internationally given how vital this rainforest is not only to Brazil, but also the entire world in terms of preventing global warming and acting as a key carbon sink. Domestically, his support for gun rights will have serious consequences; banning firearms possession, especially that of handguns, as the UK has done is a much better approach to tackling urban crime.
Comments
Post a Comment