Close links between Social Assistance and presidential vote in Latin America

Monday, October 17th 2011 - 19:08 UTC

Full article 3 comments

A paper from the University of Vanderbilt Latin America Public Opinion Project confirms that conditional cash transfers (CCT) by governments from the region condition to a great extent the vote in favour of the incumbent candidate. Read full article

Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules

GeoffWard2
The Brasilian Bolsa Familia is a perfect case in point.

The more people that can be put on state assistance, the more they will (and do) vote for its maintenance in perpetuity, *for themselves*, whether or not they continue to fulfill the criteria.

This results in a dependency society of the type now very obvious across the length and breadth of Brasil, as well as elsewhere, like in the UK.

The sad paradox in Brasil is that the social support system was created and put in place - not by the ruling parties - but by the Opposition.

The power of propaganda - which understands that if you repeat a lie often enough and with enough forcefulness - is that people will believe it, rather than the truth.

Such that today, most people in the street believe that the Workers Party were responsible for their Bolsa, rather than Serra, of the Opposition.
Oct 18th, 2011 - 11:36 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
Suguler
What is wrong with people voting for their own interests? Corporate lobbyists buy politicians for their own self-serving interests, why shouldn't the working class and poor do the same? The rich aggressively use their power to feather their own nests, likewise the poor should aggressively do the same.

If you're poor and have to worry about surviving, of course you will vote for the candidate who makes you feel most secure. There's nothing sinister about it. If the right want the poor and working class to vote for them I suggest they come up with something that will actually help the poor and the working class.
It especially makes me laugh when US politicians attack welfare while claiming farm subsidies, and conveninetly ignore the fact that America's biggest welfare recipients are corporations. Lockheed has been lazily sponging off the US taxpayer for decades, why is there no campaign to get these lazy corporations to pay their own way?

Seems a bit odd to me to attack welfare claimants while you're giving out hundreds of billions to the likes of Lockheed and Halliburton.
Oct 19th, 2011 - 06:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+
GeoffWard2
Sug,
the mass-buying-of-votes is much easier to do if you are the incumbent party in government. This fixes the status quo - which may be good for the people or bad for the people c.f. what the opposition might be able to do for the people.
It is, however, the absolute antithesis of democracy, which id predicated by the equality of opportunity.
So you can destroy the opposition by simply killing them all, or you can make the voters in thrall to you, which equally kills off opposition.
This is why some twenty parties in Brasil have bought themselves into the governing coalition, leaving just one fractured urban party to hold the government coalition to account. The imbalance is anti-democratic and serves nobody well.
Oct 19th, 2011 - 10:59 am - Link - Report abuse 0
-+

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!