March 3, 2015
Alessandra Corrêa – BBC Brasil, 3/2/2015
A series of problems confronted by President Dilma Rousseff in the start of her second mandate was already indicated by some as a signal of a threat to her government.
In response to the Financial Times blog post published last week on ten reasons why Dilma should be impeached, BBC Brasil offers five reasons why this likely will not happen. These reasons include the lack of solid grounds for impeachment and the absence of evidence proving the involvement of Dilma in the Petrobras scandal. Brazil Institute Fellow Matthew Taylor states, “Until now, there is still no evidence that Dilma is guilty of anything other than bad management (in the case of Petrobras).” Taylor also goes on to show why the opposition parties are not interested in having Dilma go through the impeachment process, observing, “I don’t think that the PSDB would have much to gain. Furthermore, they would need the support of the PMDB and other parties in the government’s coalition. And frankly, none of these parties would like to see Dilma suffering an impeachment.”
The article continues with evidence showing that Dilma’s support in congress is still much higher and stronger than that of former president Fernando Collor de Mello, who was impeached in 1992. Another reason for the unlikelihood of impeachment is that the current problems in Brazil are not rare for the region. Brazil is not alone in the lack of investor confidence and therefore unlikely to stand out by themselves by inciting an impeachment process. Taylor concludes by noting that the Petrobras scandal has left the country “warily optimistic.”
For full article [IN PORTUGUESE], click here.
Translation and summary by Brazil Institute intern Erica Kliment.
February 20, 2015
Monica de Bolle – The Huffington Post, 2/20/2015
It is unfortunate that Brazilian-American relations have become strained in recent years. This sense of frustration is further enhanced by the fact that the two largest countries in the Americas have very similar agendas when it comes to tackling inequality and income disparity. President Obama’s proposals towards “middle-class economics” and the recently released Economic Report of the President for 2015 highlight just how close the two countries are in their thinking about these issues and on how to make economic policies work more equitably for everyone. And yet, rather than coming together, the distance between the two countries has widened.
President Dilma Rousseff’s newly reelected government has vowed to rebalance Brazil’s economy – plagued by fiscal disarray and mounting inflation – in a way that preserves the legacy of the PT (Brazil’s Workers’ Party) achieved over last twelve years: the impressive social inclusion that has raised millions from the lowest ranks of the income distribution to the middle class. Aided by the macroeconomic stabilization of the 1990s and the unprecedented favorable external conditions that dominated the economic landscape between 2004 and 2010, the PT governments have set in motion their own version of “middle-class economics.” Remarkable social mobility took hold, and many were able to raise their overall quality of life as a result of targeted cash transfer programs such as “Bolsa-Família,” as well as specific programs aimed at allowing working mothers to remain in the marketplace and programs to help small and medium entrepreneurs tap into credit markets, among many other initiatives.
February 13, 2015
The Economist (print edition), 2/14/2015
THE slogan under which Petrobras, Brazil’s national oil company, was founded in 1953 was o petróleo é nosso (“the oil is ours”). Ours, not the foreigners’, was the implication. That, too, is the sentiment behind the oil policy of the Workers’ Party (PT) governments that have ruled Brazil since 2003. But as Brazilians contemplate the huge corruption scandal now engulfing Petrobras, they might ask themselves just who “ours” refers to.
The PT disliked a successful reform of Petrobras in the 1990s, which stripped it of its monopoly of production and distribution while subjecting it to market discipline and arm’s-length corporate governance. When the company and its new foreign partners made huge deep-sea oil strikes in 2007 Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Brazil’s president, saw a chance partially to restore Petrobras’s monopoly. New oil laws drawn up by Dilma Rousseff, his chief of staff and successor, gave the company sole operating rights and a minimum 30% stake in the new fields.
Lula and Ms Rousseff saw oil as the spearhead of an industrial policy that involved fostering favoured sectors and presumed national champions. Lula ordered Petrobras to build four new refineries, three in the poor north-east. A new rule required up to 85% of equipment and supplies for the oil industry to be nationally produced. A dozen new shipyards studded the Brazilian coast, fed on cheap government loans. They provided 74,000 new jobs, boasted Ms Rousseff during her campaign last year for a second term. “We created an immense industry.”
February 3, 2015
Paulo Trevisani and Djania Savoldi – The Wall Street Journal, 2/1/2015
Brazil’s newly elected Congress was sworn in Sunday and gave a black eye to President Dilma Rousseff , electing a lawmaker largely seen as opposed to her administration for a key position in the legislative body.
Federal Deputy Eduardo Cunha, from the Brazilian Democratic Movement Party, or PMDB, was elected with 267 votes to be the speaker of the 513-member Chamber of Deputies for the next two years. He beat Arlindo Chinaglia, from Ms. Rousseff’s Workers’ Party, or PT.
Political observers say Mr. Cunha is likely to make it harder for Ms. Rousseff to push her new agenda of economic belt-tightening through Congress.
October 29, 2014
Rogério Simões, CNN – 10/27/2014
Uncertainty normally comes with the new. This year’s Brazilian presidential elections, though, have been like no other. After Sunday’s polls gave President Dilma Rousseff, from the left-wing Worker’s Party (PT), another four-year term with a narrow margin of victory, Brazilians embarked on a guessing exercise about what her next government will look like.
On the surface it doesn’t seem a vote for change, but the President knows it should be. There were exuberant celebrations in the PT camp and frustration in the faces of supporters of the defeated centrist candidate, Aecio Neves, from PSDB. But no one could say for sure what the result means for the next four years.
Since massive street protests in June 2013 called for change in Brazilian politics and economy, that word has been around in almost every political statement — including Rousseff’s victory speech on Sunday night. As she addressed supporters in Brasilia, the President said she had not forgotten the message from the streets. “The most repeated word in these elections has been ‘change’. And I know that I have been re-elected to make the big changes the Brazilian society demands.”