In addition to his role as professor at the University of Brasilia (where he has had an appointment since the early 1970s), Fleischer maintains many connections to policy-making and international financial circles that afford him a well-rounded perspective on the political situation in Brazil. Armed with a rich set of electoral and public opinion data and a steady stream of anecdotes, Fleischer offered an explanation for Fernando Henrique Cardoso's 1998 reelection for those attending the seminar at CLAS.

According to Fleischer, Cardoso won convincingly in the first round of the elections in a political context that was rapidly becoming unfavorable to his reelection. Among the problems Cardoso faced after his win in the first round were a lengthy university strike, pressures for land reform, worsening unemployment, and a series of natural disasters. In fact, by early 1998, public opinion polls showed that Cardoso had been more or less matched in the polls by his principal opponent in the election, Lula.

Thanks largely to an aggressive media campaign and a number of strategic compromises, Cardoso recovered his electoral advantage over Lula and the rest of the field. Within a month of the October 4th election, his reelection appeared to be assured. And, as predicted, Cardoso came up victorious when the final votes were tallied.

His reelection, the first in a country where single presidential terms had previously been mandatory, raises a question: What does Cardoso's election, and the strong "coat-tail effect" in congress and in state offices imply for Brazil's future? Fleischer described Brazilian political parties as numerous, generally weak, undisciplined, and fairly "porous." However, Fleischer anticipates a realignment of these parties following Cardoso's election. He predicted a return of the single line of cleavage prominent during the military years which divided "ARENA" (the military party) and the "PMDB" (the opposition party). But whether the sediment of political power in Brazil settles out into two, or three, or four major groups, what is important to note, according to Fleischer, is that the consolidation of Brazil's political parties is probable.

Fleischer also reported the test results of a number of electoral innovations that debuted in the October elections. One innovation he cited was a 1998 law which required that female candidates represent 25% of a party's list of candidates for diputado (lower house representative). Interestingly, in spite of this legislation, fewer women were elected to the lower house last October than were in 1994. Moreover, of those women elected in the most recent election, a large proportion of them, according to Fleischer, were wives of established, well-known politicians. The careers of women in politics--at least based on the results of the most recent election--appear to benefit more from solid political connections than from new election-related legislation.

Another innovation under review in the most recent elections in Brazil was the electronic voting machine. Nearly 60% of Brazilian voters in 537 cities cast votes using these machines in these elections. Brazil has always been relatively good at recording votes, even during the military years when elections were not particularly competitive. Largely because of a mandatory voting law and registration machinery that facilitates enforcement of the voting law, Brazilian turnout rates for voting have nearly always been over 80%. But among this group of voters exists a sizable minority which casts blank and null--i.e., invalid--votes, owing, perhaps, to apathy or frustration about the choices offered. The voting machines, it was hoped, would cut down on the number of these invalid votes. While the number of blank votes did decrease slightly because of the new machines, Fleischer reported that the number of nulls actually increased -- a phenomenon that surprised those concerned with Brazilian elections.

Fleischer's seminar provided fresh insight on the business of elections in Brazil, and reminded those in attendance that its nascent institutions of democracy are still clearly in flux and continue to demand the attention of those concerned with the growth of democracy there.

--Zachary Elkins