Brazil's incoming presidential election

[Koldo]

Many Bolsonaro supporters want to perceive him as fairly different from Trump, but if anything the resemblances keep piling up.

The appeal seems to be mainly that of an "outsider" who will "shake things up" in the political system.

That was a very naive expectation when directed towards Trump. And it is probably worse with Bolsonaro, who is after all an experienced if mediocre congressperson.

He is very much similar to Trump. There is no denying that.

But far as I can understand the average voter, he is sick and tired of such a lack of perspective and hoping against all reason that there is some form of shortcut towards a magic solution - even if it is based in some form of brutality.

Both PT and Bolsonaro make just such a promise.

We will suffer a lot more loss and harm before we learn better.

Indeed. Everyone wants a magical solution. Everyone should have more realistic expectations though.

 

[Koldo]

I will have to vote for Haddad if it comes to choosing between him and Bolsonaro.

It is an easy decision, albeit a very tragic one.

For all his many faults, Haddad at least seems to want to attain some resemblance of being an actual decision maker with some degree of success.

And he does not seem to make a point of destroying his own reputation, either.

Bolsonaro does not have even that going for him.

I am afraid my situation is a different one.
I don't want to vote in Bolsonaro, but I can't get myself to accept that a party known for its corruption will once again achieve power. I am afraid we will never get out of the corruption circle at this pace.

I abhor corruption so much that I just might end up voting in a dude that I don't agree with.

 

[Koldo]

Because I am pretty far to the left both economically and socially. I'm not a fan of corruption, but I would prefer a corrupt government that treats its citizens well to a transparent one that doesn't.

Fair enough.

 

[Koldo]

Thanks for this post. What happens in your country is important for everyone and the news media in America is giving almost no information (Democracy Now! is an exception but it is not seen by many people).

I am just curious about the level of support for Bolsonaro. Is your country conservative enough for him to actually win? I always thought that the majority of the populace was at least left of center which is why for example, someone like Lula won.

By the way, Happy Birthday!
I hope you are having a great day!

 

[Milton Platt]

Pretty much.



We are assigned a place to vote based on where we live and when we get there we need to show an ID with photo ( like a driver license ) and sign a list. This is how the government gets to know who voted.

Voter ID has been strongly opposed here.
Just out of curiosity, why can't someone show up, show their ID, sign the list, and not vote?

 

[Koldo]

Voter ID has been strongly opposed here.
Just out of curiosity, why can't someone show up, show their ID, sign the list, and not vote?

I don't remember exactly the whole procedure. I mean, you get to sign the list when you get there, but I think they get to keep your ID until you vote. After you sign though, it only takes an extra minute to cast your vote in the booth, so I don't see why anyone want to walk away at that point.

 

[Regiomontanus]

By the way, Happy Birthday!
I hope you are having a great day!

Thank you

 

[Milton Platt]

I don't remember exactly the whole procedure. I mean, you get to sign the list when you get there, but I think they get to keep your ID until you vote. After you sign though, it only takes an extra minute to cast your vote in the booth, so I don't see why anyone want to walk away at that point.

Okay. I don’t think anyone would bother to go to the pole, sign up, and not vote, unless perhaps they were illiterate and wouldn’t ask for help. It was just something I was curious about.

 

[LuisDantas]

We can however vote blank or null. And many do. There is even an (unfounded) urban legend running around saying that if the most votes are nulls the elections would themselves be voided and repeated with all-new candidates.

 

[LuisDantas]

I am afraid my situation is a different one.
I don't want to vote in Bolsonaro, but I can't get myself to accept that a party known for its corruption will once again achieve power. I am afraid we will never get out of the corruption circle at this pace.

I abhor corruption so much that I just might end up voting in a dude that I don't agree with.

I never for a moment thought of Bolsonaro as less prone to corruption than the average Worker's Party candidate, personally. There is not a sliver of him that suggests any particular ethical strength - quite the opposite really.

And if he somehow turned out to be ethical after all, that would achieve very little indeed. Our institutions are not well acquaintanced with doing things without that corruption. And we both know that he is not one to encourage alliances of good will.

True change will not come "from above", let alone from a glorified "cacareco".

Instead, I think that we Brazilians ought to seriously demand Parlamentarism - which will not make the changes less painful per se, but will make them faster - and even Separatism.

 

[Nous]

Let me first start by explaining how our presidential election works.
Everyone has to vote, there is a small punishment ( not physical nor jail time, if you were wondering ) if you don't. To be elected the candidate needs to achieve the majority of valid votes, as we call them. An invalid vote consists of voting in no one ( yes, you can do that, and yes, you still have to go to the voting booth to do that ). No winner-takes-all system in states, no delegates. Nothing of that, just the popular vote. That's it.

If nobody achieves the majority ( 50% of all valid votes + 1 ), then we need to vote again after 15 days, but only the top two candidates can participate this time.

With all that said and done, the voting pools have shown so far two candidates rising to the top. It is therefore unlikely anyone else will become our next president. Our pools tend to be more or less reliable when the election day is so close ( the next weekend ). So I will now introduce both of them to you and ask, based on the limited information you will be given: Who would you choose ?

The first one is Haddad. He is 55 years old. He was our Education Minister for 7 years and then after that the mayor of our most populous city ( São Paulo ) for the next four years. He is known for being a member of the Worker's Party ( PT ). That is a center-left party ( if you are from USA interpret that as being really left leaning, rather than center-left ) that had been sitting on the presidential chair all the way back from 2003 to 2016 when the then-president got impeached and the vice president took over ( he is from another political party, by the way ). PT's popularity can be attributed to its charismatic leader that has been our president from 2003 until 2011, that is Lula. Lula has always kept close ties with Unions, and Land reform movements, and during his presidency many people got out of poverty ( not strictly because of his actions, mind you ). Interestingly enough, even though PT is a popular party, some serious corruption scandals came up while it was at power. One of the latest actually got Lula into jail. The thing is: Many people want him out of jail. About a third of our population wants him to be our next president, but our law wouldn't allow it to happen. Lula is Haddad's political godfather so to say ( I love how this term can have multiple meanings and both so fitting ), and this is why he is so far ahead in the pools ( although still slightly behind the other candidate I will mention in the next paragraph ). If elected, Haddad as the next president can, in the very first day, release Lula from jail if he feels like it. The president does have this sort of power, although it can have attached costs such as losing popularity. Condemning politicians for corruption is hard enough, and if Lula gets released, it would all have been for nothing. PT never ostracizes its own politicians for corruption... As a matter of fact, it doesn't even acknowledge the corruption happened. So, if you were to vote in Haddad, expect more corruption scandals in the next four years.

Now let's go to the next candidate: Bolsonaro. He is 63 years old and a career politician. He has been a federal deputy ( a member of the lower house ) ever since 1991. However, he has always been a... no one. I mean it. Essentially no one knew him except for the fact he got a foul mouth ( Trump-ish ) and supported the dictatorship we had some decades ago. Yes, he supported the dictatorship even though he didn't acknowledge it as a dictatorship ( Yes, this candidate also doesn't acknowledge reality ). He saw a rise in popularity mostly due to the internetz ( social media ). He is a conservative, homophobic and misogynist. He is also supported by religious christians ( for the lack of a better term ) and people that would like to see a military intervention happen as soon as possible. He supports reducing taxes ( which is always a popular stand to take ), even though he hasn't really explained what cuts he intends to make ( does it sound like Trump once again ? ). He wants to privatize a lot of state owned companies and sell a lot of properties to make some money real quick. He is in favor of less government interference in the economy, and he is currently a member of a really small party. He has put forward very few ideas on what exactly he intends to do if elected though, which means a lot of people voting in him might actually get screwed by his policies. ( EDIT: I forgot to mention he also supports gun ownership which is, in practice, forbidden in Brazil. )

Now, you tell me. Which one would you prefer ?
A future filled with corruption or a future filled with surprises coming from an homophobic misogynist ?

I think I'd go with the corruption. Maybe fewer people would be harmed.

I hate to say it, but it's slightly gratifying that other countries are faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils for their executive officer.

 

[Jumi]

I hate to say it, but it's slightly gratifying that other countries are faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils for their executive officer.

Isn't that the normal case, it's rare to have an actual good candidate despite the image abroad. Haddad was presented in completely positive/neutral light in one of the papers I read here. Only negative thing they said was that Lula was disqualified for corruption so he is the best candidate.

 

[GoodbyeDave]

I don't envy your choice, but I could live with corruption if and only if the corrupt are also competent. In 18th century Britain we had a lot of corruption but fairly competent governments.

One of your problems is the power that a president has, combining the roles of head of government and head of state. How many presidential countries have had consistent good government? In a cabinet system, the head of state can always call an election if the head of govenment gets out of control. You should have stuck with the empire!

 

[Koldo]

I never for a moment thought of Bolsonaro as less prone to corruption than the average Worker's Party candidate, personally. There is not a sliver of him that suggests any particular ethical strength - quite the opposite really.

I give him the benefit of doubt, at least to the extent I don't think he will be as corrupt as PT was.
PT had a ton of time in power to figure out how to further corruption.

And if he somehow turned out to be ethical after all, that would achieve very little indeed. Our institutions are not well acquaintanced with doing things without that corruption. And we both know that he is not one to encourage alliances of good will.

Honestly, I don't believe in alliances of good will in our political scenario. I am highly skeptical of that.
At least at the presidential level.

True change will not come "from above", let alone from a glorified "cacareco".

Indeed. Way too much is expected from a president.

Instead, I think that we Brazilians ought to seriously demand Parlamentarism - which will not make the changes less painful per se, but will make them faster - and even Separatism.

I take you are living in the South, right ? Only the South wants that to happen.
It would take a civil war to allow separatism. I find the parallel between the USA's south and Brazil's south to be quite intriguing on this regard.

Regardless, I couldn't possibly agree with parlamentarism in the foreseeable future. People feel more represented by our judiciary system, which is unelected, than by our legislative body. This speaks volumes about whether parlamentarism would properly work in here.

 

[Koldo]

I think I'd go with the corruption. Maybe fewer people would be harmed.

I hate to say it, but it's slightly gratifying that other countries are faced with choosing between the lesser of two evils for their executive officer.

Isn't that the normal case, it's rare to have an actual good candidate despite the image abroad. Haddad was presented in completely positive/neutral light in one of the papers I read here. Only negative thing they said was that Lula was disqualified for corruption so he is the best candidate.

I don't envy your choice, but I could live with corruption if and only if the corrupt are also competent. In 18th century Britain we had a lot of corruption but fairly competent governments.

One of your problems is the power that a president has, combining the roles of head of government and head of state. How many presidential countries have had consistent good government? In a cabinet system, the head of state can always call an election if the head of govenment gets out of control. You should have stuck with the empire!

I wonder what you imagine when I mention 'corruption'.
I will give you a few pointers just so you can have a better grasp of what is going on:

- Back in 2005, PT used to pay many deputies from other parties just so they vote along.
- The biggest corruption scandal ( perhaps you have heard about Petrobras ? ) in the last few years involved 10 billion dollars ( more or less ).
- Before Dilma, our last president, got impeached, she was going to name Lula a minister just so he wouldn't go to jail ( yes, if you are a politician of a certain caliber you can only be judged by higher courts ).
- Paloci, who happened to be a high ranking member in PT, declared that over 90% of the 'medidas provisórias' ( somewhat similar to executive orders in USA ) during PT's government involved corruption in some degree.

I think you can understand why I rolled my eyes when I read about the huge fuss being made over Hillary's emails.

 

[Jumi]

I knew the corruption was big, but I have to admit I underestimated it. Our media doesn't do a very good job keeping us posted on Brazil (among other things).

It does look like you have two bad choices, if it comes to that.

 

[LuisDantas]

I take you are living in the South, right ? Only the South wants that to happen.

Not even us from the South generally want separatism (although I personally do). But I can't quite understand why.

It would take a civil war to allow separatism.

I don't think so. Although I do think that the chances of having a civil war in our future for entirely different reasons are fairly high.

I find the parallel between the USA's south and Brazil's south to be quite intriguing on this regard.

I don't think that there is any, honestly.

Regardless, I couldn't possibly agree with parlamentarism in the foreseeable future. People feel more represented by our judiciary system, which is unelected, than by our legislative body. This speaks volumes about whether parlamentarism would properly work in here.

Yet another Brazilian trait that I can't in good faith claim to understand.

 

[Koldo]

Not even us from the South generally want separatism (although I personally do). But I can't quite understand why.

Ever heard about Plebisul ?
The number of people that want separatism in the south is quite high.

I don't think so.

Really ? Why would the 'União' accept a part of its territory to be taken away ?
I just don't see that happening.

Although I do think that the chances of having a civil war in our future for entirely different reasons are fairly high.

What reasons do you have in mind ?

I don't think that there is any, honestly.

I meant the feeling towards separatism.

Yet another Brazilian trait that I can't in good faith claim to understand.

What specifically ? Not feeling represented by the legislative body ?

1) Deputies are mostly one-liners during the campaign with nothing of substance to say.
2) Our current political system entails electing politicians we didn't intend to. Mostly because it is based around the concept that we are fine if someone else from the same party also gets elected, which often couldn't be farther from truth.

Is it of any surprise we don't feel represented by them ?

 

[LuisDantas]

Ever heard about Plebisul ?
The number of people that want separatism in the south is quite high.

I support Plebisul. I literally have the member card. But we are hardly very many.

Really ? Why would the 'União' accept a part of its territory to be taken away ?
I just don't see that happening.

I don't see that happening either, but it would make a lot of sense for people to pursue ways of actually having a shot at being politically and economically viable.

Loyalty to abstract entities such as the "Union" is hardly a reason not to.

What reasons do you have in mind ?

Fear of the political and economic uncertainty.

Also the resentment that many PT voters and supporters still hold for what they apparently consider an "coup of the elites".

And the sheer cruelty of the social inequalities. We are falling under our own weight already. That will have serious consequences in the years to come, and would even if we had a capable and honorable President next year (which we will not).

I meant the feeling towards separatism.

So did I.

I see no parallel worth of any notice.

What specifically ? Not feeling represented by the legislative body ?

No. That is just plain common sense under the circunstances.

But there is - quite obviously, if I dare say so - a plain need for accountability if we are to eventually untangle this knot of our own making. Parlamentarism and Separatism are just about the only non-violent steps available to approach such a goal.

But for reasons that elude me, the average Brazilian hardly ever seems to think of Parlamentarism, and is unlikely to have any sympathy towards it when he does.

The end result is that we repeatedly elect Presidents that we can not trust and will not support, who are then pretty much forced to forge alliances of mutual traffic of power in order to get anything done.

And because we are Presidentialists, any change can only happen after four years or through a painful, complicated impeachment. There is not even the expectation of true accountability. We just keep repeating the motions and hoping for the political equivalent of a miracle.

That is insane, IMO.

1) Deputies are mostly one-liners during the campaign with nothing of substance to say.

Why would they fail to be just that, if that is enough to keep being ellected and listened to?

2) Our current political system entails electing politicians we didn't intend to. Mostly because it is based around the concept that we are fine if someone else from the same party also gets elected, which often couldn't be farther from truth.

I wish that was a significant problem. But I don't think it is.

Is it of any surprise we don't feel represented by them ?

No. It is no surprise at all. But without proper accountability, there is no hope for any change for the better that is not traumatic and violent, don't you think?

 

[Nous]

I wonder what you imagine when I mention 'corruption'.
I will give you a few pointers just so you can have a better grasp of what is going on:

- Back in 2005, PT used to pay many deputies from other parties just so they vote along.
- The biggest corruption scandal ( perhaps you have heard about Petrobras ? ) in the last few years involved 10 billion dollars ( more or less ).
- Before Dilma, our last president, got impeached, she was going to name Lula a minister just so he wouldn't go to jail ( yes, if you are a politician of a certain caliber you can only be judged by higher courts ).
- Paloci, who happened to be a high ranking member in PT, declared that over 90% of the 'medidas provisórias' ( somewhat similar to executive orders in USA ) during PT's government involved corruption in some degree.

I think you can understand why I rolled my eyes when I read about the huge fuss being made over Hillary's emails.

What you describe is pretty bad. Of the US does have a corrupt, lying idiot in the White House now. Some of the European countries seem to consistently have less corrupt officials.

Do you want to say whom you are voting for?