Brazil Symposium "Lula’s Brazil: A Challenge to Neoliberalism?" October 31, 2003

The discussion panel of the Brazil Symposium included (from left): Francisco Menezes, Maria Helena Moreira Alves, and Marcos Arruda.

By Patrice Schuch, visiting scholar from the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul in the Department of Anthropology, and Meg Stalcup, UCB-UCSF Medical Anthropology Program.

Heading towards the end of its first year, has the government of Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva really challenged neoliberalism and what course should it chart in the future? Elected president of Brazil in 2002 with a resounding 61 percent of the popular vote, Lula faces a historic challenge. After the 1964-85 military dictatorship and a subsequent series of presidents who were democratically elected but widely perceived as continuing oligarchic political control, many Brazilians felt that they had finally chosen one of their own. Lula was acclaimed as a fellow worker who had felt the pain of hunger and was determined to use the power of the presidency for the people and against poverty.

But questions regarding what should happen when the traditional opposition party gains power and how Lula should proceed with his mandate remain the subject of fierce debate in national and international circles. The vision of Brazil leading Latin America in forging a dramatically new economic and social policy was eagerly anticipated by some and much feared by others. These issues were explored during the Rio Branco Forum conference “Lula’s Brazil: A Challenge to Neoliberalism?” on October 31st, 2003.

Marcos Arruda, an economist and director of Rio de Janeiro’s Policy Alternatives for the Southern Cone Institute, gave a cogent presentation on the fundamentals for understanding the actions of Lula’s government thus far. The main points he developed were the effects of oppressive global economic forces, the legacy of the previous administration under Fernando Henrique Cardoso (1994-2002) and the difficulty of uniting a politically disparate coalition government and civil society.

Arruda compared competitive globalization to a global casino, where investors earn more money in capital markets than through supporting goods and services for people. Debt is a new type of colonial subordination, due to astronomical increases in international interest rates in the 1970s. Arruda detailed the problematic fact that “Brazil takes loans to pay loans.” The foreign debt went from $140 billion when former president Cardoso took office in 1995 to $230 billion by the end of his term.

In this same time period, $340 billion was paid in amortizations and interest, while internal debt increased from $60 to $670 billion. Arruda remarked, “It is clear why Brazil is in crisis. It is enriching national and transnational banks and impoverishing the national economy.” He further described neoliberal globalization as having changed to imperialism under the Bush administration, citing commercial and economic restrictions in the form of the Free Trade Agreement of Americas and the political and financial control exerted by macroeconomic institutions, namely the International Monetary Fund and World Bank. Arruda emphasized the importance of recognizing and debunking a pervasive myth — that the economy and society are independent. Rather, a clear understanding of how they are linked should guide policy.

Arruda ended by speaking on how to bring together a bickering coalition government, a heterogeneous PT (Workers’ Party) and the Brazilian population. He emphasized that although Lula is the president, the majority of members in the Workers’ Party remain in civil society and must go on being autonomous in the face of the vested interests of the elite. The government must empower society itself to be the main force. This can be done by building “the new inside the old, through economic cooperation, mutual support, reciprocity and solidarity.” This means working at the grassroots level, creating networks based on solidarity and harmony rather than subordination.

Second to speak was Francisco Menezes, a development economist, director of the Brazilian Institute of Economic and Social Analyses (IBASE) and a consultant to the Lula government on policy initiatives and goals for Fome Zero (Zero Hunger), the federal government’s new program aimed at eliminating hunger in Brazil. There are 46 million people at risk of hunger in the country, most of them concentrated in the Northeast region and in pockets of misery in major metropolitan areas. Menezes declared that Brazil has the capacity to feed its population; the real cause of hunger is people’s lack of purchasing power and land to produce food for their own consumption. Although malnutrition has decreased, this is due to improved availability of information and basic sanitation rather then increased access to food. He added that an oft-overlooked fact is the presence of both First and Third World health problems, ranging from obesity to deficiency in essential dietary vitamins and minerals. This means that any discussion of Brazil’s food problems must also address the complexity and diversity of the country itself.

Menezes laid out Fome Zero’s mission in clear terms; the main concern is hunger itself. The primary goal is to ensure the right of all to food of good quality and in sufficient quantity. This should not constrain access to other basic necessities and must be produced sustainably, without damaging future food production. The U.S. food stamp program is a partial model, but in the case of Fome Zero aid is based in the communities and is designed to stimulate local economies, encourage participatory democracy and give families incentives to send their children to school. Another move to combat hunger by Lula’s government was the creation of the Ministry of Food Security. Ideally, this institution would combine the food-related duties of the other federal ministries under one bureaucratic umbrella and avoid power struggles, but only time will tell if it will become just another competing faction.

Menezes listed three elements necessary for a successful fight against hunger. The first is political will, which must deal with hunger as an effect of unequal social development. The second element is nonpartisan, inter-sectorial politics and the third is social mobilization through the creation of nongovernmental organizations and such groups as the National Food Security Council. Menezes emphasized the importance of councils because they embody the essential coordination between participatory democracy from the side of civil society and representative democracy from the side of the government. Menezes closed by declaring that the relevance of this coordination goes beyond the fight against hunger to the future of democracy itself.

The third speaker was Maria Helena Moreira Alves, a political scientist and Director of Institutional Relations for Viva Rio, the largest nongovernmental organization in Rio de Janeiro’s shantytown favelas. She began by affirming that “civil society must always be aware and involved” and described the importance of nongovernmental organizations as a balance to government. Although the government is the main financial support of such groups, they remain distinct and play a crucial alternative role in society. Moreira Alves emphasized the primacy of participative democracy for the successful future of the Workers’ Party and also for Brazil as a country.

She concurred with Arruda’s comments on the importance of placing Lula’s actions, as well of those of the PT, in the context of the political reality of a coalition government. At the municipal level, PT politicians govern only 171 of the more then 5000 municipalities in Brazil. One of Moreira Alves’ main concerns is that the government will decide to distribute funds through the state and municipal governments. While politically advantageous to the PT in the short run, this would vitally undercut NGOs while encouraging already problematic cronyism and patronage. She summarized by saying, “there are a lot of debates about how, through whom and where to allocate money, with implications in the future for how we build up our society. Our society could get weaker and the state stronger. I will fight that from within civil society. I support the Lula government and will not go home.”

Following the panel, there was an open discussion with the audience about the Lula administration and what action should be taken in the global neoliberal framework. Arruda described how Brazil has the political conditions to fight against the neoliberal model through a holistic development approach: economic solidarity and use of an ecological rather “ego-logical” approach. Moreira Alves emphasized alternative politics to fight against the political and economic hegemonic forces expressed in U.S. dominance, such as the creation of a block of countries through the Southern Common Market (Mercosul). Menezes noted the political context within which Lula was elected and the tremendous fear of government rupture and economic collapse because the Workers Party was the traditional socialist opposition. Arruda added that a rupture with neoliberal practices is necessary and, evoking the popular image of Brazilian soccer, declared, “We’re in the second half, and while we are not winning now, the game is not over yet.”

CLAS, the Institute of International Studies, the Brazil Strategy Network and the Mellon Foundation co-hosted the Rio Branco Forum conference ”Lula’s Brazil: A Challenge to Neoliberalism?“ at Stephens Hall, on October 31st, 2003.