Comment on this article |
View comments |
Email this article |
News :: Politics
GOVERNMENT Lula: The NEOLIBERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WORKED?
by Ivo Lesbaupin
23 May 2006
Ivo Lesbaupin is a sociologist and professor of the School of Social Service of the UFRJ. He studied at a Dominican seminary, contemporary of frei Beto, frei Tito and others.
GOVERNMENT Lula: The NEOLIBERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WORKED?Ivo Lesbaupin is a sociologist and professor of the School of Social Service of the UFRJ. He studied at a Dominican seminary, contemporary of frei Beto, frei Tito and others.
Passed the storm of the denunciations of corruption, sectors of the left - especially of the PT - commemorate the return of the popularity of Lula and his government and the strong possibilities of his re-election.
The governmental and PT's marketing insists on the comparison between the current government and government FHC to evidence the positive numbers of the current management: surplus of the trade balance, exportation numbers, fall of the unemployment tax, payment to the FMI, etc.
The government Lula would be the government that, having applied the same neoliberal economic policy that FHC, however with more ability, worked.
It seems that people had forgotten the main reason for which they chose Lula in 2002, his promises in campaign, the support received in that occasion from the social movements and also from the productive enterprises.
Lula was "the hope that won the fear". The hope was to change Brazil, to change the economic policy. And what was the fear? It was the continuity, the non-change. What we believed? We believed that it was possible to change Brazil, was possible to start to face the causes of the immense social iniqualty that characterizes our country, was possible to start to diminish it.
We believed that it was possible, that it was not magic, no miracle, to carry through politics that came back to place the country in the route of the development.
It was enough to have the political will to make some decisions - explicited at that time in the program of government of the PT - that they expanded the domestic market of masses.
It was enough to make some decisions that, as this, promoted a dynamics of generation of jobs: one of these measures was an ample national plan of habitation.
This also was in the program. It was enough to change the focus of the economic policy in the control of the inflation. The economic policy in the service of the external debt and in the payment of the internal debt, in the payment of the interests was enough to change it all.
Because politics directed toward the development already had been applied successfully in many countries. And, exactly today, is applied successfully in some countries - and they grow more than 6% the year, and there is a supported growth, all year, for some years yet.
We believed, and we continue to believe, that this possible age, also in the current world-wide conjuncture, because the politics that today guide the world - the neoliberal politics - are reaching dramatical results for the majority of the populations of these countries.
Today, we already have proven this. And, today, the majority of the populations of these countries also perceives this and votes mainly in the candidates who promise the change.
This majority knows that the politics followed so far had only increased the social iniquality, the unemployment, the poverty, the misery.
If somebody doubts on these results, must read the Report of the UN on the social situation of the world: the challenge of the iniquality (2005).
In 1999, I organized a book, "the dismounting of the nation. The government FHC ", of which had participated ten authors and, in 2002, I wrote, together with another author," the dismounting of the nation in data ".
What these authors said, amongst which four were economists, sympathetical of the PT, was that the politics adopted for FHC were disastrous for the country: they were come back toward the fiscal adjustment, for the control of the inflation, bet in external capital and, for this, insisted on the high interests; they favored capital financial e, therefore, they harmed the production, they blocked the economic growth and they generated unemployment.
The necessity to control the inflation implied no control to wage readjustment. The State was come back toward the control of the public deficit, what it demanded of it the reduction of the number of public officers, the control of its wages, the control of the investment in the country and the reduction of the expenditures in social politics.
This politics demanded high interests (among others reasons, to control the inflation) and high primary surplus (to guarantee the service of the debt). The diagnosis was made: this politics would lead - it was leading - to the contraction or the low growth, the unemployment, the increase of the inaquality and the reduction of the capacity of development of the country. It would go to break the country.
The option for the neoliberal continuity.
Then, the new government, that was chosen thanks to its firm combat against this politics, since the beginning it abandoned this speech and it applied it decidedly.
It increased the interests and, since then, to each time that the inflation threat to go up, increases them again (the Central banking is, in fact, independent - for decision of the President of the Republic).
The primary surplus is bigger than 3.75% of the GIP - of the FHC time -: it is, in principle, of 4,25% but, in fact, almost 5% (in 2005, 4.84%).
This politics demands that the investments in health, in education is at the very least allowed for the law and that the investments in habitation, in basic sanitation are low, because the basic one of that the country produces, of that the country collects, has to go for the payment of the debt (surplus, etc.).
It is therefore that, in a mandate of four years, it is only in 4º. year that the government discovers that it had to invest in roads (and, exactly thus, only goes "to cover holes").
It did not invest before because its economic policy did not allow: and, because it is the same one, in this point it follows FHC, that also did not invest nothing in roads. And neither invested in habitation or sanitation.
This politics cannot generate economic growth because it does not have this objective, in contrast, its decisions blocks the growth.
After shoutting for months that this would be "a supported" growth, the government had to swallow the report of the Cepal, where, in Latin America, one year where the world-wide economy grew for all part, the growth of Brazil (2,3%) was only superior to the one of Haiti (1,5%), the poorest country in this continent.
And the government wants to convince us that this politics is working. It is effectively working, but it is necessary to explain for who: for a small slice of the Brazilian population, that enriched very much in this period, more still than it enriched in period FHC - the detainers of the financial capital.
For Márcio Pochmann, this involves in the maximum twenty thousand families (less than 1% of the population). The income redistribution that occurred - small, but real - happened between sectors of the middle classes and popular sectors: of those for these.
This was what it caught the small fall of the index of Gini. The profits of the 53 bigger banks of the country had been the greaters of our history: in the three first years of Lula they had been 42% higher than in the three last years of FHC.
Therefore, this politics is anti-development, does not construct foundations to make it possible. To give an only example, the necessary infrastructure development. The roads are a part of this: if it did not invest in the improvement of the national road mesh is because it is not being thought about increasing the production (beyond not being thinking about the population, the drivers, the passengers, the reduction of the accidents, etc.).
The government invests heavily in the agro-exportation, there is no doubt. And that's why, following the politics already initiated by FHC, we are becoming again an agro-exporter country, what already we were in the Old Republic.
We are no longer an industrialized country: it does not have industrial politics, does not have increase of the domestic market to develop the industry.
But this only confirms something that already we denounced in government FHC: this accepted politics the place in which the "globalization" - directed for the developed countries - wants in placing them, the place of exporters of primary products and raw material.
What this economic policy promotes in fact? According to Márcio Pochmann: "(...) From years 90, (...) what it was seen was the growth and the establishment of a wild model of accumulation of wealth, based now on financial imediatistic logic.
Savage because, to the end of the accounts, by means of the public debt, of the high interests and the primary surplus, the State transfers to deriving resources of all the population to the richest layers of the country(...)
In direct words, the government has collected each time more of the population, through the mainly indirect taxes and contributions, and used part important of these resources to mainly pay to papers of the debt, thus benefiting who can buy them, or either, the richest.
He treats yourself, thus, of a transference of resources of less rich for the most situated ones in the social pyramid "(Pochmann, 2004: 185, 189 - grifos mine).
The same analysis is made by other economists: The combination of primary surplus of 4,25% of the GIP with the monetary politics of incident high interests on the public debt results "in one of the most perverse mechanisms of transference of income of the poor persons for the rich ones of that notice in the history of the capitalism is had" (Assis, 89).
"In the truth, the most powerful mechanism of concentration of income in the economy is this combination of perverse tax policy and monetary, where the State acts as a redistribuidor of income and wealth in favor of the richests.(Assis, 2005: 89; to also see: Sicsú, 2005; Oak, 2005). "
(...) Besides stopping the economy, the primary surplus, now raised for 4,5% of the GIP, and the basic interests of speculation, now raised for 16,75% a.a., are a true machine of transference of income of poor persons to rich in the measure where they imply the indirect taxation of the poor persons, and the increase of the direct taxation of the middle class, for the payment of the interests of the public debt to the rich ones" (, "and nothing moved", Manifesto of the Economists, November of 2004).
"the government has made many good things"
Despite the clear priority given for the government Lula to the financial capital, many of its defenders in the PT considers that it has made many good things, what would prove an evident difference in relation to government FHC.
Certainly, the government Lula is not a mere copy of the previous government. Let us see: the external politics has adopted a more independent position and active, it obtained until the moment to bar the ALCA, faced U.S.A. and the European Union in the OMC in Cancún.
However, its great objective is the "free commerce" and has made concessions in exchange for to get reductions of subsidies for agricultural products on the part of the developed countries.
Its social programs had given continuity to the ones of FHC, but they had extended significantly its reach, besides having high the values (Bolsa-Família is the best example: it passed of a maximum of R$ 45,00 to the one of R$ 95,00).
Some measures had obtained to reduce the prices of basic products, facilitating the life of the popular classes. Front to the pressure of the social movements, the government Lula does not criminalize them and has kept a dialogue disposal and here certainly it innovates face to the previous governments.
In the case of agriculture, even so it has made a clear option for the agrobusiness, it has given a significant support for familiar agriculture - what it also benefits to the nestings (the priority appears in the numbers: in 2004, the government granted to 37 billion to the agronbusiness 7 billion to familiar agriculture).
The minimum-wage has been increased a little above of the inflation; although this small increase is compared with the old requirements of the PT, it is truth that is bigger of the one than it was granted by FHC.
And we could continue citing many other benefits that more represent improvements for the poorer sectors of the population.
From the fight against the neoliberalism to the compensatory politics.
Front to these facts, the defending sectors of the government Lula consider that he is the best candidate for the left in the next presidential elections.
For these sectors, the fight against the neoliberalism is no longer
an objective for the left. In the truth, they had found the same conclusion of the neoliberal ones: in this area, in the economic policy, "there is no alternative".
Then, the horizon of the left today passed of the social transformation for limited objectives: it is treated to keep the non-criminalization of the social movements, to promote compensatory politics, to reduce the prices of the basic products.
Or either, the limits of the possible are given by the person of Lula: if he makes, it is possible, if does not make it, it is not.
Just like the brizolists of the past, its capacity to think, to evaluate, to criticize, is blocked by the leadership of Lula.
Happily, most of the left did not stop thinking and is capable to analyze the politics for that they are, for whom they carry through, not for the speech of the politicians: as the Bible said, "it is for the fruits that the tree is knonw.
We are perfectly capable to evidence that the sectors of the population that are being benefited and which the ones that are not, which the ones that are being prioritized and which the ones that are being abandoned.
It enough to read the evaluations made for the controllers of the FMI and of the World Bank, for high employees of the government of U.S.A., it is enough to
read the interviews of the owners of the great banks (Bradesco, Itaú, Unibanco) and the satisfaction with that they say of the government Lula, to know to who serves this government.
Exactly a neoliberal government is capable to make something for its people, is capable to develop compensatory politics. And this
, the government Lula also does.
But the main one is not for this people, is for the richest minority
of the country. Andhe consequences of the adopted politics are g dramatical for the great majority, the workers, the unemployeds, the poor persons.
We also are capable to distinguish what he is made of the one that is possible to be made: we do not need the apprenticeship of Lula to know of this.
Exactly that none another country was making different, we have conditions to know that are possible to make different. But, moreover, we have examples of other countries that are making others politics, that are having the political
courage to make others politics. To give a simple example, of
the economic area, that evidences the alliances of the government Lula: between liberating the GMO - taking care of the yearnings of the multinationals (of the Monsanto, particularly) - and not liberating them - taking care of the commitment assumed with the social movements -, the government Lula decided to liberate them. France did not liberate, China did not liberate: Brazil of Lula, yes.
Malaysia established in 1998 the control of capital flows, to be able to face international financial crisis, to be able to have autonomy. Argentina, also, in 2002. China and India keep this control and, therefore, they are not reached by the international crises with
the same force that too much countries, between which Brazil. Brazil de Lula, as faithful disciple of the FMI, if refuses to adopt such controls: it prefers to be hostage of the "financial markets".
But we go a little more far: let us see the great accomplishments of the government Lula. Structural reforms.The first structural reform for which the government Lula if pledged - and it demanded that the PT if pledged - was that Reformation for which starts all the neoliberal governments: the Reformation of the Providence.
It transfers to the private sector, pension fund, a significant slice of the retirements of the public office. It was accurately this what the market wanted. The proposal of the Reformation Tax, that reform that the PT always had considered the basic one to face the inaquality in the country, does not move a comma in the regressividade of our system tributary (that is, in the fact of that this system charges who proportionally more than has little, and less of who it has more).
And since the beginning of the government, the taxes have
increased: the increase on that they gain little is bigger of the one than on excessively. A simple reading of the analyses made for the Unafisco - Union of the Auditors of the Federal Prescription - sample that the great majority of the measures lowered for the government in this area the tributes for the investors reduce or suspend (foreign, especially) and continue to charge of the Brazilian workers: "the Brazilian State is financed by the wage-earning workers and the classrooms of minor purchasing power, that they are responsible for 61% of prescriptions with taxes and contribution collected by the Secretariat of the Federal Taxes" (Syndical Unafisco - "Collection of Janeiro/2006: Resignation tax favors the Great Capital "- www.unafisco.org.br).
The document sample that measured recent had implied in a resignation tax of the State in favor of the banks in the total of R$ 1,2 billion.
In a similar way that FHC kept "frozen" the table of the IRPF of 1996 the 2001 (only corrected in 17,5% in 2002), the government Lula kept the freezing in 2003 and 2004 (it only corrected in 10% in 2005), harming excessively diligent of low wages, that had continued to pay a tax of which would have to be exempt.
That is an instant injustice tax in favor of richest and detriment of the workers. In the economy, therefore, the government Lula is the opposite of the independence that it in such a way proclamation: it is the complete submission to the dogmas of the FMI, in total continuity with the economic policy of FHC.
Not without reason, the international financial organisms do not cease to praise the government Lula. The independence that manifest it in the external politics, where if he makes use - until certain point - to face the pressures of U.S.A. and the European Union, disappears in the main one, in the economic policy. It is truth that interrupted a certain cycle of privatizations that they intended to reach Petrobra's, the Bank of Brazil, the Federal government saving bank, the Post offices.
But soon of beginning it made right with the FMI the privatization of the four last state banks. And changed the name of the process: it considered and it obtained to approve PPP (Parcerias Público-Privado) - that is only one different name for the same reality.
Under the excuse of that the country does not have resources, it becomes transference of public resources for the private sector or of public services for the private sector. It is subtle, but extremely income-producing: the population continues to pay taxes to get the services, the State collects them. But the services pass to be given by a private company, that it charges for the service: the paid citizen, as contributing and as doubly using.
And the private company has the guarantee to receive the investment in return with profit. If it will have loss, the State guarantees: it is called without risk of danger this "capitalism".
It hindered that the privatization arrived at the Petrobras. But it did not stop the process of auction of areas of exploration of the national oil for foreign companies. Despite the fight of the social movements, especially of the movement of the oil tankers against these auctions, the government Lula annually guarantees its accomplishment.
What she allows that foreign companies if possess of part of our reserves. The concern with the national sovereignty, here, is null. Of that it advances terms potential to be independent in oil, if part of that we have is yielded by the government the foreign companies?
The government Lula does not apply the neoliberal economic policy simply. It defends it firmly; it is opposed the ones that criticize it, shouts positive results of such politics; he affirms that "it is working, although all the ominous critics".
And, to gain the re-election, demands that its Party, the PT, defends this politics against its detractors. To gain the 2002 elections, Lula was a hard critic of neoliberalism; to gain the re-election in 2006, Lula is a burning defender of this exactly neoliberalism.
What it has in common between the two personages? Its personal project of being re-elected, solely.
"president Lula does not have alternative"
There is something still more serious in this position it. The social movements for the whole world had obtained a point of joint around the fight against the neoliberalism: it was World-wide the Social Fórum. This Fórum has as motto the affirmation of that "another world is possible". To each year, since 2001, nets, movements and people met, debate and if they articulate to defeat the process of mercantilization of the life that is this in which the market wants to assume everything itself.
Then, after passing all his life of political leader affirming that another way was possible, Lula is today the great defender
of the thesis of that "there is no alternative", "has an only possible way in the economy" that is not another than this that he is following. It is here where it is more evident that, in the government Lula, the fear won the hope. Lula, in this point, does not have nothing of original: FHC, before he, always affirmed this and all the neoliberal ideologists and politicians say the same (cf. Bauman, 1999).
Lula makes a disinformation campaign, developing a work of despolitization and together demobilization to the people, the workers, the poor.
He is going to change in a second mandate? Why? Despite what government Lula showed so far, some people believe that in a second mandate he is going to make the change that did not make in the first one. However, there is fact that points that becomes possible to nourish such hope. Let us see. Lula was elect in 2002 with 62% of the votes and, when he initiated his government, in January of 2003, it had 85% of popular approval. It had the enthusiastic support of the social movements, part of the middle class and sectors of the enterprises too.
At this moment, he had the legitimacy, the political strenght to take difficult measures , as for example to change the economic policy. As Maquiavel said, the hard measures must be taken by a time, in the start, when the government is with all the popular support.
Lula did not make it, however. However, to the end of the first mandate, good part of the social movements feel frustrate with the government; good part of the left manifest
clearly its disillusionment; most of the middle class already does not believe it - in reason of the denunciations of corruption, of a side, and its politics, its attitudes, its speeches, another one -; the PT was demoralized, does not raise nor half of the expectations that raised in 2002; Lula depends basically on sectors of the elites to remain in the power - especially the detainers of the financial capital -; and, to guarantee the re-election, if he makes use to more make alliances with right parties, being distributed positions.
Then, for these reasons Lula will have much less in 2007 legitimacy thanin 2003, and will be (as it is) much more dependent of the elites.
At the same time, already it demonstrated that he is not a leader
capable of daring, capable to face the elites (except in the speech).
In contrast, courage showed great and determination to face small - those same that they had been object of disdain of the Collor government and government FHC -, the public officers, the ecologists (OGM), the workers (Law of the Bankruptcies), the aboriginals.
At no moment of this mandate, Lula faced the elites of this country, either the bankers, either the great entrepreneurs, in contrast, became its ally. When initiating a second mandate without a doubt with much less force and legitimacy than
in the first one, as it is possible to imagine that it goes then to initiate the change of the economic policy? A change that, since 2004 at least, it rejects explicitly? If is this economic policy the great bailer of its re-election?
The uninterrupted increase of crime.
We attend in the last years a scaling of the criminal violence: grows the number of robberies, assaults, murders, slaughters.
Some entities have denounced the strong increase of death, for firearms, between young people15
and 24 years. This unreliability reaches the great cities mainly, but them it is not by no means exclusive. The factors that lead to this increase of the violence are multiple, but basically they are known: one of them is the increase of the social inaquality, the increasing contrast between rich and poor.
Another factor is the reduction or the blockade of ascending social mobility, that is, the reduction of the chance of improvement of life for a great part of the society, what it especially affects the expectations of youngest.
This factor is mainly caused by the unemployment and low the perspective of job. It associates this objective situation a diffusion of new values, of which the main one is the individualism - opposing to solidarity - as base for the success.
At the same time, it is spread out that the society if does not have to occupy with the people, who each one is only responsible for its survival and its salvation. In a context of high tax of unemployment, precarious work, basses wages, few perspectives, precariousness of the public services, the individual exit as only solution certainly do not contribute for the social cohesion. Why I call the attention for this question?
Because strong national politics of job generation would only raise again hopes, it only offers of better public services - health, education, habitation - would allow to breach the vicious circle that feeds the violence.
However, the government Lula keeps the same economic policy that hinders the development, that blocks the dynamics of generation of jobs, that reduces the investment in social politics and
therefore, instead of starting to reduce the violence, contributes to increase it.
The PT, since its foundation, during 22 years, became known for being a different party of the traditional parties, compromised with the interests of the workers, coherent with its principles, between which the ethics.
A party capable of, in minority, to face the right and the media, to exactly keep its commitment original being made ridiculous
by the medias. Its parliamentarians were known by its firm position, for the speeches of denunciation against the corruption, for defending the causes of the oppressed ones. Then, this PT still exists, but in its militant ones, some governing and some parliamentarians, but not more in its direction (in the majority of its direction, that withholds the effective power): the current PT is the party of Lula, approves the politics that he wants, the laws who he decides, the alliances who he desires to make, does not have plus any autonomy.
It is made use to reelect Lula and to make what will be necessary for this, also to defend its neoliberal economic policy. Or either,became a right party . And
who more contributed for this, as main leader, was accurately Lula. Into few years, he transformed the PT in its opposite, a defending party of the neoliberal politics.
Them federal parliamentarians who had kept fidiciary offices its original program and its commitments, the party banished them or punished, taking them ou. With all the support of the leader, Lula. The party was fit, to be able to support its personal project of being able. One was disfigured. For its militant ones, it is unrecognizable. For the Brazilian society, it does not have plus a project of country, does not have plus a development project: its project is the project of Lula - exactly that this means a retrocession for the workers.
In 2005, the denunciations of corruption had made to know a side of the PT that still was not known: the corruption. The PT bought votes of parliamentarians so that they supported the projects of the government. But, for incredible that it seems, it did not buy these votes so that such parliamentarians voted in left projects, favorable to the majority of the Brazilian people: it bought them to vote in the right projects, such as FHC already had made. For all the effect, the denunciations if had circumscribed to the PT, had not reached the president. But an analyst politician cannot limit itself to whom she says the media: if the projects approved with these votes had been accurately the projects of the government, the head of the government evidently had knowledge of that it was being fact, knew the way as if they had constituted such alliances.
The head of the government is responsible the main one of this option, not them its subordinate: it is so or more responsible than they. It is a truth duty to recognize that the corruption in the government Lula is not the biggest corruption of the history of the country: the corruption in the previous government was very bigger - but it was not investigated. However, he is forcible to recognize that he had corruption, yes, and to favor a personal project of being able. E the CUT Before the government Lula, the CUT was the more militant syndical central office of the country, fighter in favor of the interests of the workers. Today, after many positions and aidings, the CUT (the majority of its national direction) was coed-opt: the government defends not more and the workers. "pelega" became. Today, ahead of a small
increase of the minimum-wager controllers declare that it was "a victory". (Parentheses: the critical one is directed to the national direction of the CUT, to the majority of its direction. In a similar way that in the PT, we know well that good part of the militant ones of leading the CUT and exactly syndical that does not occupy the central power keeps a militant position, in favor of the workers, against the neoliberal politics). The participation the government Lula if initiated with the perspective of being a participation government. It inaugurated an Advice of Economic and Social Development , with members of the enterprises,
leaderships, of the Churches and organizations of the civil society.
Its projects, before going for the Congress, had been debated this Advice. But the time showed that this participation was mere apparent. The government allowed the debate, yes, but the Advice was advisory: the proposals approved for the Treasury department and the Central banking were only incorporated. Still in the first year, the quarrel of the Plan Plurianual de Ação (PPA) gave to understand that it would be the government of the participation. The ABONG and Inter-Redes had been convoked to organize fóruns in all the states and to debate the PPA. The representatives of the civil society had participated with enthusiasm. But, there, again, frustration: the agreements established for the government with the entities organizers had been all forgotten. After innumerable attempts making the government to remember its commitments, ABONG and Inter-Redes if they had removed of the process. So the stroke of a bell participation was only to promote the image of the government, an image that if verified false. Summarizing In short, the option of the government Lula for the neoliberal economic policy, for the continuity of the FHC politics, in will behind take them to the same disaster already foreseen by the left economists years. The extremely favorable picture of world-wide the economic conjuncture contributes to embaçar the vision and makes it difficult to see the reality objective. But this picture will not remain forever. Our external vulnerability remains high, over all because the country followed the prescription of the FMI and chose not to establish the control of the capital flows. For the joy of the financial investors and the risk of the majority of the Brazilian people. We do not have one politics of development: we do not have investment in science and technology, we do not have industrial politics, we do not have national politics of habitation, does not promote the domestic market of masses. Therefore, it does not have a dynamics of creation of jobs. "Full job" in Brazil still is prohibit expression. The adopted economic measures hinder the supported increase it wage-minimum. The social politics are compensatory, as it suggests the World Bank: they do not develop the country, but they hinder its poor population to die of hunger, being prevented at the same time the risk of social convulsion. They keep the appearance of that the government if interests for the people, when its real interest is come back toward the financial capital. One development politics would allow that the people had job and obtained to support themselves thanks to its proper work: the compensatory politics becomes the people more dependents of the governmental aid. It does not demand that the government redirects its mounts of money: it can continue paying in one year 157 billion Reals in interests and to dedicate 7 billion to the stock market-family (he arrives the 15 billion for the net of social protection - 10% of whom he goes for the bankers and rentistas). He makes time that Lula if forgot its phrase of campaign: "To create jobs it will be my obsession". Fidiciary office to the conception of the right, the government promotes the traditional disjunction between economic policy and social politics. The economic policy can remain the same one while it makes "social politics" - as the stock market-family. Only that, as affirms Márcio Pochmann, for the left, the first social politics is the economic policy: she is it who allows - or not - to promote growth, generation of job and distribution of income economic. If if it does not move in the economic policy, can be made social politics - one poor politics for the poor persons - at the same time that if it makes the main politics for the rich ones. During the 2002 campaign, the candidate Lula insisted where he made much time where he did not have project for Brazil, since the period of the military. We continue not having: what we have today is a project of maintenance of the power (without project for the country). In synthesis, what Lula made: · abandoned its promises of campaign, it made the the opposite of that it promised and he is the main defender of the neoliberal economic policy today; · in the field, made option for the agronegócio and abandoned the agrarian reform; · is the main defender of the thesis of that "it does not have alternative"; · destroyed the PT (its direction) as left of left and transformed it into a neoliberal party or the "party of Lula"; · finished with the CUT (to little, the majority of its direction) as central syndical militant. In contrast of that Lula affirms, of that four years it is little time, its government was extremely efficient: § increased the primary surplus; § approved two reforms structural (that FHC had not obtained): the reform of the Providence of the public sector and the reform tax; § approved the Law of Bankruptcies; § approved the project of PPP (Parcerias Público-Privado); § annually carries through the auction of areas of exploration of the oil; § has pay very the external debt with bigger efficiency that government FHC (the point of being praised by Malan), in detriment of the social politics and the investments for the development of the country and without never having cogitated to make an auditorship of this debt; § thanks to the high interests, increased the internal debt still more (that it arrived at the house of 1 trillion); § increased the profits of the bankers, the pension funds and the rentists; § increased the profit of the privatized companies (telephony, electricity) (in the case of the telephonic ones, it goes to leave stops after the elections the unpopular measure of increase of the tariffs). For the next mandate (2007-2010), Lula already has in its program the accomplishment of the working reform. For the indications that we have - offered in elapsing of the current mandate -, this reform follows the general line of the neoliberal governments, of "flexibilization of the working laws, that is, of reduction of the protection to the workers. Therefore, after demolishing the social protection of the workers of the public sector, it intends to demolish the social protection of the workers of the private sector. It also has in its program the legalization of the "autonomy of the Central banking" - defended incessantly for its Secretary of the Treasury and never refused by president Lula. Who will make the opposition to these projects when the government Lula - in an eventual one according to mandate - considering? The constructed institutions of left in last the twenty years - the PT, the PcdoB, the CUT - had been disassembled by the government Lula while left opposition. Probably, we will have of in being valid them other sectors: social movements, ONGs, Churches. The Bible
affirms that "it is not possible to serve two lords
". If, therefore, the government Lula serves to the financial capital (rentistas, banks, pension fund), will be that it also serves the workers, to the unemployeds, the majority of the Brazilian people? Bibliographical references ASSIS, Jose Carlos of (2005). The Macroeconomics of the full job. In: SICSÚ, PAULA and MICHEL (orgs.) (2005), op.cit., p. 77-93. BAUMAN, Zygmunt (1999). In search of the politics. Rio De Janeiro, Jorge Zahar. CARDIM, Fernando (2005). Challenges for the democracy in Brazil. In: Benevides, M. V. and Cardim, F. Desafios for the democracy in Brazil. (Debates on Conjuncture n. 2), They are Leopoldo, Ed. OIKOS; Rio De Janeiro, CEDAC/NOVA/ISER ASSESSORSHIP, p. 13-21. OAK, Carlos Eduardo (2005). Public debt: one has debated necessary. In: SICSÚ, PAULA and MICHEL (orgs.) (2005), op.cit., p. 379-399. GONÇALVES, Reinaldo (2002). Derailed wagon: Brazil and the future of the global economy. Rio De Janeiro, Record. PAULA, Antonio João of (org.) (2003). The Economy politics of the change: the challenges and the mistakes of the beginning of the government Lula. Belo Horizonte, Authentic. _____________________ (org.) (2005). Good bye to the development: the option of the government Lula. Belo Horizonte, Authentic. POCHMANN, Márcio et alii (2004). Atlases of the social exclusion in Brazil, volume 3: the rich ones in Brazil. São Paulo, Cortez. RICUPERO, Rubens (2005). "an archaic project for Brazil", Leaf of São Paulo, 18/09/2005. SICSÚ, João (2005). Armoring the Brazilian economy: it exists alternative to the programs of the FMI? In: SICSÚ, PAULA and MICHEL (orgs.) (2005), op.cit., p. 97-116. SICSÚ, João, PAULA, Luiz Fernando of, MICHEL, Renaut (orgs.) (2005). New desenvolvimentismo: a national project of growth with social fairness. Barueri, Manole, Rio De Janeiro, Foundation Konrad Adenauer. STIGLIZ, Joseph (2002). The Globalization and its curses. Future Ed. ______________ (2003). Exuberant years 90: a new interpretation of the decade most prosperous of history. São Paulo, Company of the Letters. UNITED NATIONS (2005). The Inequality predicament. Report on the Social World Situation 2005. New York, United Nations. "The Interdicted Agenda: an alternative of prosperity for Brazil ". Manifesto of the Economists, (signed for 300 economists), June of 2003. "and nothing it moved. For one economic policy directed toward a national project of development, with priority for the generation of jobs and the reduction of the social inaqualities ". Manifesto of the Economists, (signed for 360 economists), November of 2004.
This work is in the public domain
Re: GOVERNMENT Lula: The NEOLIBERAL GOVERNMENT THAT WORKED?
by Marina Siva
siva (nospam) ig.com.br (unverified)
23 May 2006