Failed governments of pt (workers party) in brazil


Published on

  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Failed governments of pt (workers party) in brazil

  1. 1. FAILED GOVERNMENTS OF PT (WORKERS PARTY) IN BRAZIL Fernando Alcoforado * The balance of Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments indicates a lack of commitment from both and the PT with the great struggles of the Brazilian people carried forward the last 50 years, a traitor historical inconsistency. This inconsistency arises in the economic, social, political and moral planes. The inconsistency in the economic sphere is manifested in the fact that both governments have given continuity to the neoliberal and anti-national policy of governments Fernando Collor, Itamar Franco and Fernando Henrique Cardoso following what the Washington Consensus established in the 1990s. Even the policy of privatization of state enterprises countered by the PT in its infancy is being taken by the government Dilma Rousseff who arrived at the absurdity of delivering 60 % of the oil of Libra field subsalt layer to foreign capital along. The so- called public private partnership (PPP) implemented by the current government is nothing more nor less than the new name given to the privatization of ports, airports, highways, etc. process. One of the great expectations that were created with the victory of PT governments was that it would initiate the process of national emancipation with overcoming dependence of Brazil to foreign capital and strengthening productive sectors belonging to Brazilians. Instead, what we see is the increased financial and technological dependence of Brazil in relation to the outside and the denationalization of the Brazilian economy. The financial dependence on overseas results from the fact that the neoliberal economic model imposed the need to attract foreign capital to cover the chronic and growing deficit of the balance of payments on current account and technological dependence results from the fact that most of the industries located in Brazil especially in cutting edge sectors, being multinational. The opening of the Brazilian economy from 1990 and maintained by governments Lula and Dilma Rousseff worsened the situation of Brazilian industry that lost competitiveness due to obstacles represented by the overvaluation of the exchange rate and the “Brazil Cost” (high real interest rates, the highest tax burden, high labor costs, high costs of the pension system, complex and inefficient tax laws, high cost of electricity, poor infrastructure and lack of skilled labor). The pity is that Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments failed to reverse the deindustrialization process started in Brazil in 1985 that showed in 2011 participation equivalent to that recorded in 1956 when the government Juscelino Kubitschek launched his Plan Goals (14.6 % of GDP) after a period of great expansion of the Brazilian industry from 1947 to 1985. Weakening of the Brazilian industry was decisive for half of foreign direct investment in Brazil in recent years was aimed at the acquisition of many domestic industries. Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments were not able to promote sustainably economic growth in Brazil at rates above 5 % per year required for generation of employment and income in Brazil. The average growth rate from 2002 to 2012 was 3.45 % per year. For the IMF itself, the reason to low economic growth in Brazil are growing deficit in the transactions of goods and services with the rest of the world, the difficulty of investing in infrastructure, inflation above-target requiring increase in the interest rate to curb consumption and unlike that preaches the Brazilian government, high public debt.
  2. 2. According to the IMF, the expenses of the Union, states and municipalities account for something close to 40 % of Gross Domestic Product. The IMF questions the fact that the government spend more than it collects accumulating debts that are among the highest in the developing world. The gross debt of Brazil closed the year 2013 at 67 % of GDP. The largest expenditures of the Brazilian government in 2013 were used to pay interest and repay principal debt corresponding to 43.98 % of the Brazilian government budget. Addition to the high expenditure on the servicing of public debt, high interest rates Selic adopted Central Bank of the Brazilian government, the fifth largest in the entire world economy, and the growing public sector deficit decisively contribute to the continued increase in public debt in Brazil. Maintained the trend to allocate more resources for the payment of interest and amortization of debt, there will be fewer resources available (federal, state and local) government to invest in economic and social infrastructure of Brazil. This explains the fact that the federal government does not have resources to invest in economic and social infrastructure that requires investments of R$ 2.5 trillion, adopt the policy of privatization of state enterprises and make auctions for oil exploration in the pre - salt. The failure of Lula and Dilma Rousseff in the social arena translates into the fact of not having promoted the true social inclusion of the poor in their integration to the labor market as a result of GDP growth, ie the increase of national wealth. There was a false social inclusion because it took place with the granting of "alms" to 50 million poor Brazilians through the “Bolsa Família” program with funds from the Treasury. The failure of PT governments in the social sphere is also embodied in the fact that the real unemployment rate corresponds to 20.8 % of the economically active population as opposed to the official rate of 5.3% and 10.5 % IBGE DIEESE recorded in October 2012 . The official unemployment rate is low because many unemployed were left out of the calculation of the index such as the “Bolsa Família” beneficiaries. A striking proof that the unemployment rate is high is the fact that public spending on unemployment benefits grows without stopping in Brazil. The logical thing would be public spending on unemployment insurance be the minimum possible occurrence of low unemployment rates. This contradiction exists only because the official unemployment rate is wrong, under sizing the number of people without jobs effectively in Brazil. The federal government is cheating the official data of formal employment. Adding the growing unemployment with the increasing expense of “Bolsa Familia”, one can conclude that there are many Brazilians increasingly depending on state handouts to keep. Can this be a sign of a healthy economy? Of course not. Can a government on such data celebrate the economic, social and employment framework in Brazil? Obviously not. Just as the neoliberal governments of Fernando Collor, Itamar Franco and Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the neoliberal governments of Lula and Rousseff also failed with the neoliberal economic policy that resulted in dismal economic growth in the last 24 years (1.45 % per year). Lula and Dilma Rousseff governments also failed with its social policy to not promote social inclusion based on the insertion of the poor to the labor market and not reduce unemployment rates in Brazil. The failure of PT governments of Lula and Rousseff in the political and moral planes resulted from the fact promote alliances with José Sarney, Fernando Collor, Renan Calheiros and other nefarious figures of the Republic and physiological parties such as
  3. 3. the PMDB, have contributed to the existence proven in the case of " mensalão" and the rampant corruption in many instances the state apparatus as allegations of corruption press. The lacking ethics and morals of former President Lula and President Dilma Rousseff behavior also calls into question all serious members of the PT, allied parties and personalities who support it should react against this state of affairs. The respectability of the PT and allied leftist parties is being destroyed by former President Lula and for president Rousseff. * Alcoforado, Fernando, engineer and doctor of Territorial Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, a university professor and consultant in strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is the author of Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova (Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado. Universidade de Barcelona,, 2003), Globalização e Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of the Economic and Social Development-The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe Planetária (P&A Gráfica e Editora, Salvador, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011) and Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012), among others.