Brazilian Protests: An Analysis of the Economic Fallout

In an article in Forbes, Kenneth Rapoza writes about possible economic and political fallout from the Brazilian protests.

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?

On Friday, June 21, Dilma finally addressed the Brazilian people in a pre-recorded TV address, whose goal seemed to be to reassure protesters that their voices were being heard, as well as to reiterate that her government would not tolerate violence.

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"

Paulo Sotero is the director of the Brazil Institute at the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars.

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."

"Financial Times" Analysis of Brazilian Protests

As the protests in Brazil continue, with over a million people taking to the streets on Thursday, June 20, the story is gaining wider coverage in the international press. Major news outlets are providing analyses as well as straight news stories. 

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. 

Another Analysis of the Protests

This analysis, by Rachel Glickhouse of the Christian Science Monitor, offers some thoughtful insights into the ongoing Brazilian 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. 

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. 

So while those of us in the US are in no position to criticize others for perceived apathy, it is fair to point it out when we see it, at home or abroad. And I believe that many Brazilians would agree that there has been a certain level of political disinterest. 

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

Although US news coverage of the protests in Brazil has been underwhelming, the Director of the Brazil Institute of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars has posted a thoughtful analysis of the situation. 

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

For the past week, protests have been taking place in Brazil, largely unreported, or under-reported, by the US media. During that same time, there has been fairly detailed coverage of protests in Turkey, but not much at all about those in Brazil. Even Brazilian papers provided minimal coverage during the first days of the protests.

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).