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would allow for public input (first a constituent assembly, a suggestion which was widely criticized and was quickly withdrawn, and then a plebiscite, which appears to have Congressional support).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.