This infographic from Estadão shows the dates of the protests, as well as their numbers and locations throughout Brazil. This article includes additional details.
Sunday, June 30, 2013
Why Brazilians Hate Their Congress
 |
| Too bad Brazil's Congress isn't as lovely as these buildings |
Even US citizens, who also hold their Congress in extremely low esteem (latest approval figures are below 10%), would be appalled at some of the outrages that are tolerated in Brazil's Congress.
For example:
1. About one-third of the Congress faces charges ranging from corruption to slavery and kidnapping.
2. Members of Congress have special judicial standing which results in trials that drag on for years.
3. This is a direct quote from the article which I didn't want to paraphrase because it's so incredible: "In 1963, Senator Arnon de Mello shot dead a fellow legislator on the Senate floor, only to escape imprisonment, since the killing was considered an accident because he was aiming at another senator."
4. De Mello's son, Fernando Collor de Mello, was elected President in 1989, but resigned in disgrace over corruption charges in 1992. But his story doesn't end there. In 2006, he was elected to the Brazilian Senate, where he continues to serve, in spite of an ongoing lawsuit involving corruption that occurred during his Presidency.
5. Public opinion of Congress is so low, that a professional clown won election to the lower house with more votes than any candidate had ever received in the country's history.
The article includes more stories of members of Congress who have committed murder, operated death squads, and engaged in various sordid scandals.
To top it all off, members of Brazil's Congress receive large salaries, along with generous fringe benefits and the ability to hire large staffs.
No wonder the Brazilian people have had enough. These crimes and excesses, which are as widespread as they are appalling, are an eye-opener. What surprised me the most is that members of Congress don't even seem to try to hide their offenses, which is usually what happens in the US.
And as bad as the US Congress may be, no member has ever been accused of overseeing a death squad that disposes of its victims by tossing them into a vat of acid, or dismembering them with a chainsaw. (I did not make that up: read the article).
I have argued in the past that since Brazil is a democracy, with free and open elections, its citizens can bring about political change by voting. And indeed, Brazilians *do* vote, with a turnout rate near 80%. (This turnout is all the more impressive when one considers the corruption in the system). So I could never understand why Brazilians were so cynical about their political leaders. My feeling was, if they're that bad, why do you keep electing them?
Well, when the institution of Congress itself is so tainted by systemic corruption and criminal behavior, there are limits to what the voters can do at the ballot box. And that is one reason why the recent protests have brought so many people to the streets.
Saturday, June 29, 2013
Detailed Breakdown of Datafolha Poll Results
The next set of graphs shows her approval ratings by region, followed by graphs that show approval by income, education, gender, and age.
There's lots of interesting data here, so feel free to geek out.
Note: In order to make the graph large enough to read, you have a couple of options:
1. Click on the graph, then right click and select "open in another window" in Safari ("open image in new tab" in Chrome). That will allow you to enlarge it enough to be legible in your browser.
2. Download the PDF to your computer (right click on it and select "save image as"), then open it and enlarge it.
Majority of Brazilians Still Support Hosting the World Cup and Olympics
Brazil's Protests From A Global Perspective
 |
| Protesters in Bulgaria |
Not only do the protesters have similar concerns and grievances, they are also using social media to communicate with each other in English. One observer quoted in the article describes the protesters as "a group of people who are better educated and more connected through technology."
While social networking was a key part of the Arab Spring protests, those protests were more about gaining freedom from repressive regimes than they were about economic issues. The current round of protests have been marked by less violence, though police have used rubber bullets and there have been deaths.
Dilma's Popularity Plummets 27 Points in Past Three Weeks
Prior to the demonstrations, 57% of those questioned gave her a rating of "good" or "excellent." That number has now fallen to 30%, just a little over half what it was before the protests.
In addition, the number who gave her a rating of "bad" or "worst" has risen from 9% to 25%.
As the article notes, this is the biggest drop in Presidential approval ratings (as measured by Datafolha) since Fernando Collor in 1990. Collor resigned due to corruption in 1992.
If her own approval ratings weren't bad enough, approval of the government's management of the economy fell from 49% to 27%, a further indication that public confidence has deteriorated signficantly.
One positive note for Dilma: 68% approve of her idea for a plebiscite to address political reform. Only 19% disapprove, while 14% had no opinion or did not answer the question.
While it was expected that Dilma's approval would suffer as a result of the protests, this is a precipitous decline for such a short period of time, especially for someone who has been so popular. In spite of being somewhat slow to respond to the protests in the first place, Dilma's own actions during the protests have been reasonable and conciliatory. It isn't really a question of things that she has done wrong, but rather that she hasn't lived up to the newly articulated expectations of the Brazilian people.
It's possible that her support wasn't that deep to begin with, or it's possible that she's the victim of the anti-government fervor surrounding the protests. It could be that the public simply wants to put Dilma on notice: do something soon, or we'll vote for someone else.
Whatever the cause of the drop in approval, the implications for her prospects in the next Presidential election are huge.
Of course, the elections are still over a year away, and anything can happen. Politicians have risen and fallen in shorter time spans that that, and if the public is withholding support as a form of rebuke or a warning, the number could quickly rebound if people feel that Dilma is acting in good faith to address their concerns.
But if the PT, her political party, senses that she has been irretrievably damaged by the protests, they don't have a lot of time to waste if they want to find a replacement.
Dilma is a pragmatist and a realist, and while I don't expect her to simply give up her candidacy based on one poll, neither do I believe that she will drag her party to defeat just to satisfy her own personal pride. If and when she comes to the conclusion that she's no longer a viable candidate, my guess is that she would withdraw in favor of someone else.
It's far too early to predict Dilma's political demise, but these numbers are quite bad, and it would be dangerous to ignore them. Ignoring the protests in the first place was a mistake that many Brazilian politicians made.
We'll need to watch future polls, as well as those carried out by other polling groups, in order to see how widespread and long-lasting the disenchantment with Dilma's government has become. But for now, these numbers show that she has a very serious problem.
Update: Here's a report from Huffington Post on the Datafolha survey results, and here's a report from Reuters.
Reuters supplied the sample size as well as the margin of error for the poll:
"The Datafolha poll, which was conducted on June 27-28, surveyed 4,717 people and has a margin of error of plus or minus 2 percentage points."
Reuters also says that the poll shows that the protests are "a serious threat to her [Dilma's] likely re-election bid next year."
Additional information about the polls, as well as some analysis, can be found in an article on Philly.com.
Update 2:
Folha has published a graph which shows how Dilma is doing compared to three likely opponents for the Presidency in 2014. While her numbers have dropped, she still holds a narrow lead over her closest competitor.
Brazilian Protests: Giving the Government Some Breathing Room?
In an analysis in Reuters, Anthony Boadle offers a brief history of the Brazilian protests, including the causes, the public backlash against police violence, and the response (or lack of one) from political leaders. He also includes predictions from several Brazilian commentators. While the protests continue, they are not as large or widespread as they were during the height of the demonstrations. Could it be that the protesters are waiting to see what the government comes up with in response to their concerns?
Many commentators have criticized both Congress and Dilma for being slow to respond, and at least in terms of public statements, that accusation is probably justified. It was a week before Dilma issued a brief statement, which was followed the next day with another one, in which she praised the democratic spirit of the protesters. However, it wasn't until almost two weeks had passed before she appeared on TV to speak to the nation.
When response to her TV speech was unenthusiastic, she met with a group of protest leaders the following Monday, and then issued a series of proposals that would allow for public input (first a constituent assembly, a suggestion which was widely criticized and was quickly withdrawn, and then a plebiscite, which appears to have Congressional support).
Meanwhile, Congress began pushing through a flurry of laws that had been languishing for years, in an effort to show the people that their elected leaders are listening. In addition, a Brazilian federal politician was sent to jail for corruption, the first such jailing in 25 years.
It's understandable that the protesters and political observers have been critical of the response of the political establishment. However, the government has been faster to respond than governments in almost every other country which has seen massive public protests in the last several years. (As one example, President Obama never held a meeting with leaders of the Occupy Wall Street movement, and the US Federal government passed no legislation in response to those protests).
Whether all of this will be enough to satisfy the newly mobilized Brazilian electorate remains to be seen, as does their willingness to continue to live with the current political structure, with its alphabet soup of political parties (Dilma's own PT relies on a 16-party coalition to maintain its power in Congress). With such a proliferation of parties, Brazilians should (theoretically) feel well-represented, regardless of their political outlooks, but clearly, that is not the case.
It also remains to be seen if a new political party will emerge from the protests. So far, that seems unlikely, since the leaders of the protests have been vocal in their insistence that they are *not* a political party, and have shown no indication that they want to become one. But if the existing parties cannot or will not address the concerns that sparked the protests, a new party (or the complete re-branding of an existing party) may be necessary.
So what does this all mean? It looks as if the protesters are giving the political leaders some breathing room, but they are not going to just disappear. If the politicians come up with something that is the basis for meaningful reforms, and if they do it quickly, they may be able to demonstrate enough good faith to win back the support of the people. But it seems clear that political leaders can no longer assume that they will automatically earn that support at the ballot box, regardless of what they do once they are in office.
Tuesday, June 25, 2013
Another Analysis of the Protests
Ituassu seeks to put the protests into a broader context, describing the causes, the demographics of those protesting, the response (or lack of one) by political leaders, and implications for the future of the country.
One of his conclusions is that:
"The protests, however they end, challenge Brazil to break with its antique, centralised social practices and structures, which include corruption, the lack of a genuine public conscience, secretive political institutions and a very concentrated media system."
Dilma Proposes Constitutional Convention For Political Reform
 |
| Dilma meets with leaders of the Free Fare Movement (Source: NYTimes) |
As the report notes, Dilma, along with the rest of the Brazilian political establishment, was caught off-guard by the protests. However, in an effort to regain some control over the situation, Dilma has now proposed a plebiscite to determine whether to convene a constitutional convention that would address political reform. The details are unclear, but the proposal itself has already been criticized as violating the terms of the existing Brazilian Constitution.
Meanwhile, Dilma met on Monday with leaders of the Free Fare Movement, which initiated the protests several weeks ago.
A short article in the NYTimes includes additional information about recent events.
While Dilma has been criticized by almost everyone for her slowness to respond to the protests, the BBC item gives her credit for attempting to take positive action. The NYTimes article makes the valid point that unlike leaders in almost every other country which has seen massive public protests in the recent times, Dilma is "aiming for a relatively accommodating response to the protests, in contrast to how leaders elsewhere have reacted to major street mobilizations."
The size and the duration of the protests in Brazil have taken everyone by surprise, including most Brazilians. It's tempting for observers to rush to judgment, maybe because the extent of the protests makes us think that we need to come up with broad, sweeping conclusions about what they mean and how the government should respond.
Some people, both among the protesters and observers, seem to have already decided that the government is incapable of offering a meaningful response, presumably because it is so tainted or corrupt that it cannot possibly be part of the solution. That strikes me as a simplistic reaction, particularly because the demonstrators have taken great pains to make it clear that they are not a political party.
Therefore, they can not offer a political solution to the problems against which they are justifiably protesting. While it's possible that candidates for public office may emerge from the movement, it seems unlikely, at least as of today.
So what are the alternatives? Brazilians may criticize their government, but history shows that they will not tolerate anarchy or chaos. Indeed, the people responded with shock and disgust when they saw images of looting and other criminal activities during protests last week.
We should have a better idea of the political fallout of the protests after new public opinion polls are taken. It's likely that Dilma's popularity will have declined, just because during times of political unrest, political leaders tend to take some of the brunt. If polls reveal a sharp decline, that could signal trouble for her re-election. But then the question will become, who will voters turn to if they reject Dilma?
Monday, June 24, 2013
Brazilian Protests: A "No" or a "Go"?
"Small spark, large conflagration; disoriented leader, leaderless movement; vertical rigid state power, flat nimble protests; harsh authority, impish youth; force of the state, flexibility of Facebook; police crackdowns, agile regroupings; conspiracy charges, humorous ripostes."
He writes about the challenges facing protest movements which lack political leadership, but concludes with this:
Brazilian Protests: An Analysis of the Economic Fallout
As Rapoza notes, Brazil's sluggish economic growth had already been a source of concern before the protests began. If the government spends more money on improving public services (one of the complaints made by many protesters), that may provide political relief, but could have a negative impact on the economy.
Rapoza writes that since the middle class is now a majority of the population, "there are more of them to complain."
This echoes analyses from other observers: the very success of Brazil's previously robust economic growth, along with a massive number of people moving from poverty to the middle class, are contributing to the discontent that we see in the streets.
Dilma Speaks, But Is Talk Enough?
The AP offers an account of the speech, as well as responses from several protesters, none of whom seems to have been swayed by Dilma's words.
While Dilma has enjoyed extremely high approval ratings, the protests could change public sentiment and might make it easier for a challenger to offer her real competition in the 2014 Presidential election.
As the article points out, even Dilma's critics (which includes most of the Brazilian press, who have never been big fans), acknowledged "the difficult situation facing a government trying to understand a mass movement with no central leaders and a flood of demands."
It seems clear that the protests are not going to die out any time soon, and Brazilian politicians, unaccustomed to such massive demonstrations, are simply not prepared to deal with them.
Dilma herself waited an unusually long time before issuing any statement at all, and her initial response was brief and non-committal. By last Tuesday, she had acknowledged that the protests were a legitimate part of the democratic process, but the fact that she waited almost two full weeks before speaking to the nation on TV says a lot.
Paulo Sotero's Op-Ed in The "Financial Times"
Last week, he wrote an op-ed about the Brazilian protests which appeared on the Brazil Institute's website. He has written another analysis of the situation which was published by the Financial Times.
Mr. Sotero offers a balanced and realistic view of the protests, which he neither romanticizes nor condemns.
Referring to the protesters, many of whom have been young and middle-class, Sotero writes:
"Beneficiaries of two decades of democracy with economic stability, they bought the dream of a more prosperous and equitable Brazil drummed up by their leaders and are now saying that it is time to start delivering."
He goes on to detail the challenges that Dilma faces as she attempts to deal with the protests, concluding with this assessment:
"The president’s late and unimpressive response to the protests raises doubts about her own standing. There is no longer a sense of inevitability over Ms Rousseff’s re-election in October 2014."
Saturday, June 22, 2013
"Financial Times" Analysis of Brazilian Protests
One of the most recent comes from the Financial Times. The headline reads: "Brazil: The power of the streets," with a subheading that states "The mass protests have left politicians flat-footed and fearful." The analysis itself touches on familiar themes, and just as interesting are the comments from readers below the article.
What emerges from both the analysis and the comments is a reminder of how difficult it is to properly assess the meaning of events as they are happening. It will be much easier to know how important these protests have been in six months, or a year, or during the next Presidential election, or even farther in the future.
Of course, future commentators will be relying on reports of the events that will lack the immediacy of the coverage we are receiving right now. Even people who are organizing and participating in the protests will most likely provide different accounts of them as time goes on. It's human nature to emphasize the aspects of our past behaviors that cast us in the most favorable light, and to minimize or ignore those that do not.
It's impossible for us to know today the long-term impact of the protests, and it's natural for us to feel frustrated as we try to figure out what is really going on, and what might happen next. The protests began as almost a minor news story, with the focus on the rate hike in transit fares. They quickly took on a broader agenda, with protesters complaining about political corruption, and the lack of money spent on education and health care, among a growing list of issues.
When the police over-reacted with violence against peaceful protesters and innocent bystanders, the protests gained broad-based public support. However, with recent incidents of criminal behavior, some who had expressed optimism and enthusiasm about the protests are understandably disenchanted.
It may be that this problem is exacerbated by the lack of a unified political structure behind the protests, with no single spokesperson who can provide leadership, speak on behalf of the protesters, and repudiate acts of violence.
In any case, while we lack the perspective that only time can bring, we do have the benefit of getting direct, first-hand coverage of an event that is unprecedented in recent Brazilian history while it is happening.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Another Analysis of the Protests
Ms. Glickhouse asks this very important question:
"Could it be an end to the usual apathy and complacency, to the shrug and 'vai-fazer-o-que' [what can you do] ... attitude? Are people finally going to take action? Is this the start of something big?"
That, as they say, is the big question, and while it's too early to know the answer as of today, there is reason for cautious optimism. Think about it: it is not easy to maintain people's enthusiasm for political protests. They can be dangerous, they take a lot of time and commitment, and there is no guarantee that you're going to get what you want.
It's especially difficult to mobilize members of a population that has, as the author points out, something of a tradition of apathy, combined with lots of complaining about the system.
It's especially difficult to mobilize members of a population that has, as the author points out, something of a tradition of apathy, combined with lots of complaining about the system.
I do not in any way say that as a criticism of the Brazilian people, since the same words describe the general attitude towards politics among the citizens of the US: we love to complain about how rotten our elected leaders are, but we don't do much about it. Many of us do not even bother to show up and vote. Indeed, Brazil has a much higher voter turn-out than we have in the US, even if one of the reasons may be that there is a small fine for those who choose not to vote. But my guess is that even with a fine, US voter turnout would still be lower than most other western democracies.
That's one of the reasons why the current protests are such a big deal. In spite of past apathy, the protests have only grown in size, and they are getting much more coverage now than when they began. Not only that, but even Brazilian newspapers, traditionally conservative and not all that friendly to Dilma or her so-called "leftist" political party, the PT (let alone protesters in the streets) have been providing coverage that is (slightly) more balanced than it was at first.
Ms. Glickhouse is wise enough not to predict what is going to happen next, or whether the protests really will be a crucial turning point in Brazilian history. However, she does point out some of the factors that *could* cause the protests to be the beginning of a big change in the way things are done in Brazil.
For those of us who are fascinated by Brazil and its people, and who are aware of the many challenges that the country has faced during its long history, we can only hope that this does indeed mark the beginning of a new era of citizen involvement.
If it does, Brazil could become a model for other countries, including the US, to emulate.
Analysis of Brazil Protests by Paulo Sotero, Director of Brazil Institute
 |
| Source: NYTimes |
While the rate hike in transit fares may strike some foreign observers as not that big a deal, Sotero puts it into context:
"They (the people) are asking: if Brazil is the sixth or seventh world economy, as the country‘s politicians like to proclaim, why do they still have to endure two to three hours each way of overcrowded public transportation in terrible traffic?"
He also writes about the impact that these protests are having on political leaders, noting that the two immediate past Presidents of Brazil are urging politicians to pay attention to the protesters:
"Cardoso and Lula, the two most competent and accomplished Brazilians politicians of the last quarter century, have cautioned leaders to listen to the protesters and understand what they are saying. President Dilma Rousseff seems to have got the message. On Tuesday, she stated that Brazil woke up stronger because of the protests."
Cardoso and Lula, once political allies, ran against each other twice for the office of President. Cardoso won both times, but Lula won the election which selected Cardoso's successor, and served for two terms. Cardoso has been critical of both Lula and Dilma, at times sounding as if he feels that they have unfairly received credit for things that were actually the result of his terms in office, so it is significant that the two men have issued similar warnings.
As for Dilma, the comment that Sotero quotes is much more empathetic (and less condescending) than an earlier statement she made, which stated that the protests were "legitimate" and that it's "natural for young people" to protest. Perhaps she has had time to recognize in these protests some of the same fervor that prompted her own involved in fighting against the dictatorship.
Source: Brazil Portal
Brazilian Protest: It's Not Just About Bus Fares
 |
| Source: O Globo |
The protests began over a rate hike in public transit fares. The hike of 20 centavos amounts to about 10 cents in US currency. That may not seem like much, but for someone making minimum wage, who needs to make multiple bus trips every day to get to and from work, it's a cost that can mount up quickly.
More than that, these protests have provided a focal point around which people can express frustration over even larger issues confronting Brazil. Protesters have cited concerns about political corruption, the wide income gap between the affluent and the poor, the inferior quality of public education, health care, and hospitals, and the huge amounts of public money being spent on soccer stadiums and other facilities in preparation for the World Cup.
Police over-reacted during some of the protests, using tear gas and rubber bullets, and injuring news reporters and other innocent bystanders. This has only intensified the outrage of the people, and yesterday, protests took place in at least 11 major cities across Brazil. Estimates of the total number of protesters in the streets ranged from 250,000 to as many as a million.
Reports are that these are the biggest protests in Brazil in 20 years.
And the story is finally getting serious coverage. Today's issue of Globo has a large headline "O Brasil Nas Ruas" (Brazil in the Streets) along with two big photos.
There's an item in BBC News, including a brief analysis, and bloggers are writing about the protests as well: Adam at "Eyes on Brazil" has written several detailed posts, including links to videos, and you can also read what Tom of eatrio.net and Alex of BossaBreezes have to say about the protests.
More reports are available from the Guardian, USAToday, Reuters, and even the NYTimes is finally giving the story the attention that it deserves. (Update: More coverage by the NYTimes here).
Dilma, who was imprisoned as a member of a movement that fought against the military dictatorship, issued a statement that said, "Peaceful demonstrations are legitimate. It is natural for the young to demonstrate."
Politically, the timing of these protests causes a real challenge for Dilma. She's already receiving a lot of criticism for her handling of the economy and for Brazil's sluggish economic growth. While her approval ratings have remained very high in spite of the sluggish economy, public opinion about the protests is bound to have an effect on that.
It's almost a no-win situation for her: if people support the protests, they are likely to feel that Dilma's government has not done enough to address the issues behind the protests. If they oppose the protests, they may feel that Dilma's government should be cracking down harder on the protesters.
In his post about the protests, Tom of eatrio.net wrote the following: "Where the Occupy Wall St movement was commonly accused of not having a clear demand, I think the protesters have made a smart decision in choosing a concrete issue to start off with." I think he's made a very important point here. It's much more difficult to mobilize people for a prolonged period of time when there's not a tangible goal involved.
It will be interesting to see how the local, state, and federal government respond to these protests that appear to be gaining strength.
Meanwhile, those of us who live in the US might want to ask ourselves, "Why did the protests in Turkey appear to receive more immediate and more thorough US news coverage than those in Brazil?" Another question I have is this: "What would the US news coverage be if large anti-government protests took place in a country like Cuba?"
Just something to think about.
Update: Articles in Estadão report that bus rates have been reduced in Porto Alegre and Recife. (Of course I can't read more than the headlines, because Estadão now limits access to 5 articles a month. And Folha has just started limiting access to no more than 10 articles a month. In both cases, they require not only an email address, but a CPF in order to register. Very annoying for those of us who live outside of Brazil, or for whatever other reason do not have a CPF).
Meanwhile, those of us who live in the US might want to ask ourselves, "Why did the protests in Turkey appear to receive more immediate and more thorough US news coverage than those in Brazil?" Another question I have is this: "What would the US news coverage be if large anti-government protests took place in a country like Cuba?"
Just something to think about.
Update: Articles in Estadão report that bus rates have been reduced in Porto Alegre and Recife. (Of course I can't read more than the headlines, because Estadão now limits access to 5 articles a month. And Folha has just started limiting access to no more than 10 articles a month. In both cases, they require not only an email address, but a CPF in order to register. Very annoying for those of us who live outside of Brazil, or for whatever other reason do not have a CPF).
Friday, June 14, 2013
Dilma Strikes Back
 |
| "I will not accept terrorism, even from economists!" |
Specifically, she said:
"They say that Brazil is a country in trouble.... Not only is Brazil not going through a rough patch, we are extremely solid. Everybody has to be humble and accept criticism, but not terrorism."
There is one article about her speech in Estadão, and another one here.
But I discovered that Estadão now limits you to reading 5 articles a month, unless you're a subscriber or are willing to register. That's a very small number for one month. Even the NYTimes lets you read 20 articles a month before you have to subscribe. I'd be happy to register with Estadão, but they require a valid CPF, which of course I do not have, so I'm out of luck. You can't even email them without a CPF or CNPJ, which I also don't have. I'm sort of surprised that they don't make any allowances for foreign readers to access their site, but I'll grumble about that some other time.
Globo has an article with longer excerpts from the speech. And so far, no limits on the number of articles viewed per month (so there, Estadão). Here's the part where she talks about "terrorism":
"Quero dizer que a inflação jamais vai voltar e está sob controle. Por isso, peço a vocês que não deem ouvidos a esses que jogam sempre no quanto pior melhor. Todo mundo tem que ter a humildade de aguentar as críticas, mas terrorismo, não."
Update: Here's a video clip showing the part of Dilma's speech in which she uses the word "terrorism" to describe the critics of her government's economic policies. I was able to find it using YouTube's search, but unable to find it through Blogger, so you'll have to click on the link instead of seeing the video embedded. (More grumbling).
But I discovered that Estadão now limits you to reading 5 articles a month, unless you're a subscriber or are willing to register. That's a very small number for one month. Even the NYTimes lets you read 20 articles a month before you have to subscribe. I'd be happy to register with Estadão, but they require a valid CPF, which of course I do not have, so I'm out of luck. You can't even email them without a CPF or CNPJ, which I also don't have. I'm sort of surprised that they don't make any allowances for foreign readers to access their site, but I'll grumble about that some other time.
Globo has an article with longer excerpts from the speech. And so far, no limits on the number of articles viewed per month (so there, Estadão). Here's the part where she talks about "terrorism":
"Quero dizer que a inflação jamais vai voltar e está sob controle. Por isso, peço a vocês que não deem ouvidos a esses que jogam sempre no quanto pior melhor. Todo mundo tem que ter a humildade de aguentar as críticas, mas terrorismo, não."
Update: Here's a video clip showing the part of Dilma's speech in which she uses the word "terrorism" to describe the critics of her government's economic policies. I was able to find it using YouTube's search, but unable to find it through Blogger, so you'll have to click on the link instead of seeing the video embedded. (More grumbling).
Sunday, June 9, 2013
Dilma's Approval Drops 8 Points….Sort Of
Folha has just published a poll with new data on public opinion of Dilma's government, as well as the state of the Brazilian economy. Compared to a survey done in March, there has been an 8 point decline (from 65% to 57%) in those who rank Dilma's government as "good (bom)" or "excellent (ótimo)." However, the number who assign her a ranking of "OK" (my translation for "regular") rose 6 points, from 27% to 33%.
Meanwhile, those ranking her as "bad/worst (ruim/péssimo)" rose only 2 points, from 7% to 9%. So the total percentage of those who approve of Dilma's government remains quite high, at 90% (1% have no opinion). The real change is in the level of enthusiasm for her government.
Of greater to concern to Dilma are the poll results dealing with the economy.
In March, 51% believed that the economy would improve, but that number has dropped to 39%. There has been an 8 point increase in the percentage who believe the economy will get worse, from 11% to 19%. The number who think it will remain the same is fairly stable, rising from 34% in March to 38% in the latest survey.
Primary causes for economic concern are inflation and unemployment, with rising numbers expressing concerns about both of these problems. Attitudes about unemployment are even more pessimistic than those about inflation, with only 27% believing that unemployment will drop, compared to 41% who believed it would decline in March.
These results come on the heels of a series of negative reports and analyses about Brazil's economy, and specifically, the role that Dilma's government has taken in handling the economy.
During the past several weeks, Dilma has made some shifts in her economic policies, in the hope that they can reverse some of the negative trends. Even her critics acknowledge that she is more of a pragmatist than an ideologue, and it will be interesting to see if the recent changes bring about positive results.
What does all of this mean as far as the 2014 Presidential election? So far, in spite of the shift in the approval ratings, not much. According to another item in Folha, Dilma continues to be the favorite, with 51% of likely voters expressing support for her.
What does all of this mean as far as the 2014 Presidential election? So far, in spite of the shift in the approval ratings, not much. According to another item in Folha, Dilma continues to be the favorite, with 51% of likely voters expressing support for her.
Friday, June 7, 2013
"The Economist" Offers Negative Analyses of Brazil's Economy
 |
| Source: "The Economist," June 8, 2013 |
One of the articles in The Economist is entitled "Brazil’s disappointing economy: Stuck in the mud," and the other is called "Brazil’s mediocre economy: A fall from grace."
There's also an audio interview with an Economist correspondent stationed in São Paulo, which elaborates on themes developed in the articles.
The first article cites sluggish economic growth, rising inflation, inadequate investment, and a decline in consumer and investor confidence as key problems. It lays most of the blame for these problems on the current administration, whose policies, it claims, have only exacerbated the problems.
The second article goes even further, accusing Dilma of abandoning policies that were initiated when Fernando Henrique Cardoso was Finance Minister. These policies were effective in finally bringing an end to years of hyperinflation in Brazil. The article asserts that Dilma has chosen to "squander an inheritance" by instituting a form of "Chinese state capitalism."
Specifically, Dilma is criticized for excessive government spending, getting the Central Bank to cut interest rates, and introducing a number of tax breaks, the costs of which were not offset by spending cuts.
Guido Mantega, the current Finance Minister, comes under particularly harsh criticism. The Economist notes that in an article in December, 2012, it called for Dilma to fire Mr. Mantega. The article continues:
"It was widely reported in Brazil that our impertinence had the effect of making the finance minister unsackable. Now we will try a new tack. We urge the president to hang on to him at all costs: he is such a success."
At first glance, it might seem presumptuous for The Economist to assume that its recommendation for Mr. Mantega's dismissal would have had any effect at all on his political future. But it's obvious from the items in Folha and Estadão that the Brazilian press does pay attention to what The Economist has to say.
The audio interview is interesting because the correspondent discusses Brazilians' over-riding fear of any signs of a return of inflation, a fear which is totally understandable. She also mentions that in spite of troublesome economic signs, Dilma's popularity remains very high (the correspondent puts it at about 80%), and that short of an economic disaster, her chances for re-election are very good.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)