MercoPress. South Atlantic News Agency
Bolsonaro's first 100 days: not much to show and but his lack of government experience
President Jair Mesias Bolsonaro decision to mark the symbolic milestone of 100 days in office next Wednesday has come with not few comments: analysts say the euphoria of his October victory that ended decades of centre-left rule is evaporating. Read full article
Comments
Disclaimer & comment rulesIf THIS the beginning; imagine “THE END”:
Apr 09th, 2019 - 01:52 am - Link - Report abuse 0https://i1.wp.com/www.humorpolitico.com.br/wp-content/uploads/2019/04/Premio-Olavo-de-Carvalho.jpg?resize=768%2C753&ssl=1
Hey...where is the surprise? This is Bolsonaro just being Bolsonaro! Propped to power by extreme (criminal) political maneuvers that included nothing less than putting the favourite candidate out of the game by imprisonment.
Apr 09th, 2019 - 02:37 am - Link - Report abuse 0Pathetic.
One MUST admit about ONE good aspect of the whole political clowning - the beginning & the end coincided pretty well! Now that the tooting & dancing in the streets is over & the hooting - hopefully - MAY start any day!
Apr 09th, 2019 - 11:20 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.chargeonline.com.br/php/charges/tacho.jpg
EM
Apr 09th, 2019 - 06:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0The only surprise - well, not really - is your ignorance on Lula's crimes....this is Reekie, just being Reekie. Pathetic.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Apr 09th, 2019 - 08:19 pm - Link - Report abuse 0No surprise is your ignorance concerning Lula's human rights breaches. “The fact that there is no physical evidence implicating Lula led Mark Weisbrot, writing in the New York Times“
”Yet crucially, there is no evidence that Lula either owned or lived in the triplex at any point. Beyond the suspicious activity with apartment 164-A, the court cited no evidence that directly implicated Lula in a quid pro quo with OAS. Instead, it argued that because it is known that OAS was taking kickbacks from Petrobras, and Lula was the sitting president at the time, it is reasonable to infer that he was aware and complicit. This is, needless to say, not sufficient evidence to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. And indeed, according to several analysts, no European or American court would have ruled to convict based on the evidence presented”
http://www.brownpoliticalreview.org/2018/03/brazils-democratic-woes-anti-elitism-reemergence-illiberalism/
@JB
Apr 09th, 2019 - 08:56 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Re “Bolsonaro's decision...”
Considering what B has said since (wants to change history textbooks to claim the coup was democratic and approved by society), I think it's pretty clear he authorised the video.
Yeah, the coup was approved by *some* segments of society, but if the majority had supported the army, they wouldn't have had to rig and/or cancel elections, or suppress even the peaceful demonstrations and strikes.
If the communists had taken over, it probably would have been more like Cuba, and I doubt that they have a high minimum wage. But it's a false dichotomy, because those weren't the only options, and the economic policies imposed by the military had nothing to do with fighting communism.
Re Temer vs Jango, you don't object to the former taking over because you liked his policies, but you can see there are parallels. Someone on the other side of the political spectrum might think they were justified in getting rid of Temer; it's probably for the best that no one tried.
I think at least some MPs in the UK feel responsible towards their constituents, though there is corruption at the top, much more so than in daily life. When you say society is out to get ahead at any cost, do you mean in Brazil or all around the world?
@DemonTree
Apr 10th, 2019 - 02:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: The coup [it WAS or WASN'T]:
Independent to the heated argument [AND the tortures + murders]; the FACT still remains that “Those In-Charge” successfully+totally ruined the economy PLUS got the highest credit for creating Hyper-Inflation. This certainly was not a SMALL feat!
https://charges.uol.com.br/upload/bobagens/ovoinflacao.jpg
DT
Apr 10th, 2019 - 03:40 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It may be “clear” to you because it’s what you like to believe, BUT, there’s no evidence B did authorize it. And as I said, even if it was, its contents were pretty inoffensive…except to those looking for hair on eggs.
The segments that backed the military were those that represented society….only the leftist politicians and their followers – pretty insignificant number wise – didn’t.
I’m prepared to believe that a fair part of the population, mainly the poor, weren’t in much of a condition to understand what was going on / what was at stake.
What “rigging” of elections were there ? they were held, but obviously under a new set of rules, in line with the times : in ’68, all political parties were replaced by two new ones : Arena (govt) and MDB (all the opposition) ; (even today, Congress admits ‘too many parties’ spoil the broth) ; popular vote for Prez, governors, Senate ‘n mayors was no longer allowed, but in ’72, was altered to only Prez ‘n governors.
Say what you like about the military, but I’m convinced that Brazil was far better off than if the other alternative had succeeded.
As to the options, the times weren’t exactly conducive to discussions on the matter. The idea of popular debate would have been ridiculous. You need to understand that two main forces were being formed, only one would prevail.
The economic policies “imposed” by the military were responsible for the so-called ‘economic miracle’…once the commie threat was under control, the military’s legacy was positive, but I’m sure the left prefers to ignore this.
As to Jango vs Temer, first of all, they assumed under different circumstances…and yes, OBVIOUSLY I supported Temer - in the beginning - he had been instrumental in getting rid of Dilma AND he tried to do the right thing.
“society is out to get ahead at any cost, d’you mean in Brazil or all around the world?” I mean ALL around the world, to a greater or lesser extent…it’s human nature.
@Jack Bauer
Apr 10th, 2019 - 03:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: The economic policies “imposed” by the military were responsible for the so-called ‘economic miracle’
Wasn't the True Miracle: The population still managed to survive, after the economic crisis+hyperinflation?
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Apr 10th, 2019 - 06:44 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“once the commie threat was under control” I have twice produced articles from the public record showing what you claim is false. While you have failed to provide any prof of what claim. Thus you are revealed as a liar again.
“While interest in the history of the PCB declines after 1958, it becomes even more scarce during the administration of President João Goulart. In this period the PCB is only cited in a superficial manner. In addition to the generalized expressions which see it as part of the 'left' of the time,”
The Brazilian Communist Party and João Goulart's Administration. Jorge Ferreira
“Inconveniently, the US can point to nothing even remotely threatening done by the Brazilian Communist Party, and early in 1964, Russian leader Khrushchev refuses even token financial aid to Goulart, not wishing to tangle with the US over the country. ” Brazil Herald, 3/6/64
The MAIN point:
Apr 11th, 2019 - 12:30 am - Link - Report abuse 0http://www.chargeonline.com.br/php/charges/tacho.jpg
@:o))
Apr 11th, 2019 - 04:54 pm - Link - Report abuse 0That's why I said the “so-called” economic miracle.....anyway, the military's contribution, overall, was positive.
Between 69 ‘n 73, under Medici, Brazil’s GDP grew at a respectable 7 to 13%/year, based on the economic development plan put into action by Castelo Branco in 64; there were significant improvements to infrastructure , industrial development - in metallurgy, generation of power, petrochemicals - provided by the growth ‘n strengthening of a few strategic State-run Cos ; the consequent increase in employment due to these investments in infrastructure and industry.
Negative aspects : inflation grew (15 to 20% /year); despite funding the growth, the foreign debt increased ; distribution of wealth did not work too well, and as of 74, the global oil crisis, put an end to it.
But even Lula praised the ‘economic miracle…as can be seen in the following link : -
https://youtu.be/IxYJ2y10T7A
You will notice that not even once, did he call the military regime a dictatorship…
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Apr 11th, 2019 - 09:47 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“You will notice ...” Says the king with no clothes
He doesn't have to as every rational person and history has named them correctly for what they are.
REF: Pension Reform; is BR going the USA-Way?
Apr 11th, 2019 - 09:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0https://americansfortaxfairness.org/trumps-tax-budget-priorities-hurt-working-families/
Gollum,
Apr 12th, 2019 - 07:39 pm - Link - Report abuse 0You misunderstood completely....too subtle for you ? to be expected...as your knowledge of Portuguese, and most other things, is non-existent.
Jack Bauer aka Proof-less and Truth-less
Apr 12th, 2019 - 08:31 pm - Link - Report abuse 0As for my knowledge it's more than enough to expose your 'claptrap'.
If u say so, Gollum. IDAWI.
Apr 13th, 2019 - 04:50 pm - Link - Report abuse 0@JB
Apr 14th, 2019 - 09:53 am - Link - Report abuse 0The fact the military suspended the popular vote for all the highest offices shows they did not believe their allies or favoured candidates would have majority support. And although the number of parties in Brazil is annoying and impractical, it is that variety and having direct elections that allowed Bolsonaro to win the presidency. If Congress had chosen the president, it would be someone like Meirelles, a centrist with very little popular support. (And maybe I would have preferred that outcome, but I'm not going to pretend it would be democratic.)
“The segments that backed the military were those that represented society”
What, so poor and possibly ill-informed people aren't part of society?
Maybe these people didn't understand, or maybe they just had different priorities to you. Rich people stood to lose a lot if the communists took over, poor people may have felt they had nothing to lose and something to gain. Or maybe they just would have liked to vote for an increased minimum wage and better working conditions, but they weren't able to. The problem with saying only the educated or well informed should vote is that then a large segment of the population has no voice, and their concerns and needs will be ignored by politicians who only care about reelection. This is almost certainly why poverty in Brazil remained so high for so long.
“[Temer] had been instrumental in getting rid of Dilma”
I suspect if Jango had been instrumental in getting rid of Janio before taking power himself, you would think his presidency even more illegitimate.
“I mean ALL around the world, to a greater or lesser extent…it’s human nature.”
It's a part of human nature. But we are willing to be altruistic, too. Humans are complicated.
“stood to lose a lot if the communists”
Apr 14th, 2019 - 01:07 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It is the same nonsense that the US went through with the “Reds under the bed scare”. As there is nothing in the historical record that supports such a possibility.
“While interest in the history of the PCB declines after 1958, it becomes even more scarce during the administration of President João Goulart. In this period the PCB is only cited in a superficial manner. In addition to the generalized expressions which see it as part of the 'left' of the time,”
The Brazilian Communist Party and João Goulart's Administration. Jorge Ferreira
“Inconveniently, the US can point to nothing even remotely threatening done by the Brazilian Communist Party, and early in 1964, Russian leader Khrushchev refuses even token financial aid to Goulart, not wishing to tangle with the US over the country.” Brazil Herald, 3/6/64
@DemonTree
Apr 14th, 2019 - 04:35 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: What, so poor and possibly ill-informed people aren't part of society?
Say what you like but the FACT still remains that they, the masses PREFER to be robbed by the uniformed crooks than those without ANY uniform! At least their reasoning is FAIR and you just can't blame them!
DT
Apr 14th, 2019 - 09:06 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“The fact the military suspended the popular vote for all the highest offices shows they did not believe their allies or favoured candidates would have majority support”.
Really ? do you know that for a fact, or is it your interpretation of their actions ? You don't suppose, even for a second, that they - knowing damned well what the civilians (politicians) were capable of - did not trust them ? or the people for that matter, knowing their sad record for voting for sh*t candidates ?
The number of parties is what also worked for Lula to get in....so, what's your point ? that it was ok for Lula but bad because Bolsonaro got in ? Don't forget, it was the popular vote, not the number of parties that elected Bolsonaro. And, it was Lula, early on, that decided to “bribe” Congress (in many different ways) to get them to “cooperate”...(i.e.,“mensalão” ring a bell ?).
“What, so poor and possibly ill-informed people aren't part of society?”
Not what I said, or implied ...for all intents 'n purposes, they were NOT ignored...back then, if their 'social situation' - for lack of better words - never made getting involved in, or understanding politics a priority, it's just stating a fact...if they chose to stay out of the loop, who knows what they thought - if they did - or do you think the military should have called a referendum, “us or communism” ? If you really think communism would've been a better option for the poor 'n Bzl, this discussion is over.
What's all this about minimum wage ? it's not the people who vote for, or fix its value (?)
And in elections it's the “poor” who have the most votes...so they CAN decide who gets in. I can't help it if “their” candidates, once elected, couldn't care less abt them.
”...you would think his (Jango's) presidency even more illegitimate”. (?)
I never claimed Jango was an “illegitimate” prez....just didn't like his political leaning.
And it's no use discussing human nature....for better or worse, it is what it is.
@JB
Apr 14th, 2019 - 09:55 pm - Link - Report abuse 0It's my interpretation of their actions. But 'knowing [the people's] sad record of voting for shit candidates' seems to be saying the same thing. They didn't trust the people to vote for the non-shit (as judged by the military) candidates.
“The number of parties is what also worked for Lula to get in....so, what's your point ?”
I'm not talking about good or bad, but what is democratic. Removing the popular vote, and limiting the number of parties makes the system much less democratic, less responsive to the will of the people. For good or ill, the majority supported Lula, and for good or ill, the majority support Bolsonaro now. My point is, the military may or may not have been better for the country than whatever civilian government might have been elected, but it wasn't democratic, and only stayed in power by force and rigging the system.
Re poor people, that's what you seemed to be implying: the part of society you belong to supported the military, and other people don't count. I hear the same thing every day from Remainers here. The people who voted for Brexit were ill-informed, mislead; they are ill-educated and deluded. Maybe so; but alternatively the benefits and disadvantages of EU membership are not distributed evenly and the Brexit voters made a decision that was rational for them. That's what I think of when you say the poor can't be trusted not to vote for the wrong candidates. Do you believe the generally richer, better educated Remainers in the UK would be equally justified ignoring the views of leave voters?
And no, I don't think communism would have been better for the poor in Brazil, any more than I think Brexit will be better for the poor in Britain.
As for minimum wage, politicians can promise to raise it if elected, or keep it to the same level. There are arguments for both depending on situation. It was just an example of something people may want a say on that did not involve communism, but was nevertheless limited by the military.
@DT/@JB
Apr 15th, 2019 - 01:46 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: “sad record of voting for shit candidates”:
Assuming that the General Knowledge [available info] + IQ - before/after the internet - is slightly [or a lot] BELOW average; the Worldwide Record of Voting for the Shittiest Candidates; will ALWAYS be sad/high!
DT
Apr 15th, 2019 - 04:53 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Exactly. They were pretty sure that when they returned power to the selfless, patriotic civilians, the latter would screw it up. They did.
“...I'm not talking about good /bad, but what is democratic.”
Abt 'what is democratic' ? yet you still avoid saying what you think might have happened had the military not taken over...consider the possibility of communism...not all that far-fetched.
Under the circumstances, allowing politics to carry-on as usual, would've meant the take-over was for nothing...and since when do you need 32 parties or more (abt 75 waiting to be registered), to consolidate democracy...how many different, 'n “legitimate” political views do you think are possible within the political spectrum ? 4, 5, 10 ? 'n back then, the 'people' did not get very involved in politics...they started waking up in the early 80s.
“My point is, the military may / may not have been better for the country than whatever civilian government might have been elected, but it wasn't democratic”....sounds like you still believe in the possibility that communism might have been better....yeah, would've been
very democratic.
It's no use transporting past events to the present 'n judging them based on today's concepts & principles....that's simply taking them out of context, as if that were possible, without a distorted result. What happened back then, happened for a reason, a good one, imo.
The 'poor' people, if you want to group them as such, were quite unaware of what was going on, or its implications...and the 'changes' which got the left-wing pissed-off, did not affect the 'poor'...to them, if to anyone, life carried on as before.
Most of the 'poor' can't be trused to take rational decisions when voting...how can they, if not well informed ?
It's not abt the 'poor' vs the 'rich', but abt who knows/understands what's going on.
Brexit may not be good, but it was put to the vote.
Most politicians will promise anything to be elected....and will not comply, if they are.
If the military had not taken over, who can say what would have happened? But I think the most likely result was a government something like the late PT one. Not something you would support, but a long way from communism.
Apr 15th, 2019 - 06:14 pm - Link - Report abuse 0Anyway, I'm not objecting to people saying the military were better than communism, but to them claiming the regime was democratic and had the support of society. Sure, it had the support of *some* of society, but not the majority. Compare what happened in Chile when Pinochet put it to the test and held a referendum on his staying in power. (He lost.) And Chile had a much bigger economic miracle than Brazil.
Re the parties, I think we can agree the optimum number is greater than 2, but less than 32. Well-functioning democracies with PR seem to generally have between 4 and 6 relevant parties, with a few more small ones.
“back then, the 'people' did not get very involved in politics...they started waking up in the early 80s.”
I wonder if that was because the military were loosening their grip, or whether the increased political consciousness forced the military to relinquish power? It can be hard to tell cause from effect.
As for the poor, yes, life carried on as before. They stayed poor, and they stayed hungry, and they never had much chance of anything else. Wasn't Lula the first (only?) President not to be born to a wealthy family?
Brexit was put to the vote, but since it was the uneducated and uniformed who voted for it, they can't be trusted to make rational decisions, so it would be okay to ignore them, right?
@DemonTree
Apr 16th, 2019 - 04:49 pm - Link - Report abuse 0REF: As for the poor, yes, life carried on as before
As long as “they” feel comfortable in a miserable state in which they spent a lifetime; what exactly is the problem?
DT
Apr 17th, 2019 - 01:29 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If the military had not taken over, who can say what would have happened?”
Good question....but I think I'm in a far better position to answer that than you...if the military had not halted Jango, it's quite possible the communists could have taken over...why so improbable ? You think it might have been something like the PT...the situation is 1963/4 was nothing like in 2002/3...your speculating is just wishful thinking, not based on any real knowledge of what was going on....
What people may claim, or contest, that the military were democratic, is irrelevant today...what happened, happened...the left has filled the internet with their version of events, choose whichever you want to believe.
You don't know that the 'majority' did not support our military...again speculating. You can't compare Brazil vs Chile...unless you want to concede that our military eliminated a very tiny fraction of people compared to the Chilean one. May I suggest you get over what happened 40 yrs ago, as it'll get you nowhere...think of the present, the future..
Ok we agree on number of political parties.....6 is plenty.
The military in early 80s was already fed up to the back teeth....and when the politicians saw their 'resolve' start to crack, they took advantage of it....don't believe that the “people” all of a sudden became aware, intelligent, 'n smart...any movement that starts small, at the top, will eventually spread to all social classes...even if the lower ones don't really understand what it's all about.
Yes, Lula was first 'poor' president...but he left wealthy....enough said.
Re Brexit, it's you who are calling those in favour of it, uneducated and uninformed, not me...it seems it was the “older” people who voted in favour of it...why are they uneducated ?...do only the young 'n inexperienced (in life) know how to vote ? ...Don't twist what I'm saying...unfortunately, it IS usually the poor, the most likely to be uninformed, that will vote emotionally /irrationally.
@JB / @DT
Apr 17th, 2019 - 10:43 am - Link - Report abuse 0“If the military had not taken over, who can say what would have happened?”
I think that in dire - desperate, drastic - situations; the masses are least bothered about the kind of govt. a regime is establishing. Military, Communist, Democratic, Socialist - ANYTHING, driven by ANY philosophy will do, as long as their needs - whatever they are used to on a day-to-day-basis - is made +/- available to them.
“You don't know that the 'majority' did not support our military”
Apr 17th, 2019 - 11:26 am - Link - Report abuse 0I don't know for sure, but I'm looking at the evidence; that the military ended direct elections, limited who was allowed to compete at all, and had to introduce more repressive measures after they were already in power. Not to mention, that the majority first voted for Janio and then approved returning full Presidential powers to Jango in a referendum. If the common people had been as conservative as the military, they'd have had no reason to take over in the first place.
And it wasn't me that brought up the past, but Bolsonaro who wanted to celebrate a coup. (And who in the past complained that your military had not killed enough people and should have been more like Argentina or Chile.)
As for Brexit, it was both older and less educated people who supported it more:
“70% of voters whose educational attainment is only GCSE or lower voted to Leave, while 68% of voters with a university degree voted to Remain in the EU.”
”Under-25s were more than twice as likely to vote Remain (71%) than Leave (29%). Among over-65s the picture is almost the exact opposite, as 64% of over-65s voted to Leave while only 36% voted to Remain.”
The 'uninformed' comes from my own experience talking to Leave voters. Eg not understanding what a customs union is, or thinking that WTO terms equals free trade. Plus conflating free movement of EU citizens with being forced to accept migrants from the Middle East, such as had just been flooding into Germany.
When the BBC interviewed people who voted Leave, they said 'that's your economy, not ours'. They didn't see any benefit personally to being in the EU, so why should they believe or care that it was good for the wider economy? That's the part that seems similar to Brazil; while the economy grew, there there were a lot of people who remained poor and hungry, and why should they care if other people were benefiting? They voted for Lula because he promised to help *them*.
DT
Apr 17th, 2019 - 05:15 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“I don't know for sure, but looking at the evidence; ” Before '62, voting was not obligatory...'n many didn't exercise their right, so looking at it pragmatically, as far as interest in politics was concerned, not much changed after 62.
But under the circumstances - military taking over to avoid what they saw as a threat to democracy 'n stability - even if they implemented their own version of democracy, to ultimately save it - it's obvious some things would change.
Janio won, but with how many votes out of the universe of people who had the 'right' but not the obligation to vote ? I repeat, back then, people were no where near as interested in politics as today.
As far as Bolsonaro's past statements are concerned, they are irrelevant because today, they are definitely in the past 'n buried...his actions, whether he believes in them or not, prove this.
Re Brexit, I'm not arguing the simple stats...the “leavers” may not be as highly educated as the “remainers”, but the difference between them is not as great as it is between the educated, and the less-educated, in Brazil...Your 'uneducated' are still better informed than 'ours'...and probably, despite having voted against 'your' interests, they must've still justifiable reasons to vote as they did.
Look, once again I'm forced to say, your uneducated are still a damned sight better informed than Brazil's. If you understood Brazil's reality, you'd see this.
I'm going to tell you something about the BF, and the myth it has created - that it pulled people out of poverty. Lula promised what he knew he couldn't deliver...full of social appeal, to conquer votes any cost, 'n in that way, implement their projects for 'power'. Populism weakens democracy. Politicians fool the voters with the notion their actions are legitimate, because they attend the interests of the common citizen...so they all speak in the name of the poor. Problem is, instead of being a starting point, to improve, it is their destination.
People who don't vote don't get a say, or so we are told. Only 37% of registered voters voted to leave the EU, but they triggered article 50 all the same. Who knows what the non-voters thought, perhaps they couldn't make up their minds? In Brazil, the people who didn't bother voting against a socialist President probably didn't support the military either. I don't understand it, but maybe they really have no interest in politics.
Apr 17th, 2019 - 07:52 pm - Link - Report abuse 0“the difference between them is not as great as it is between the educated, and the less-educated, in Brazil”
Perhaps not, but people being informed doesn't help when they're getting their info from tabloids full of misinformation. Personally, I think they voted against their own interests more than mine, given what Boris Johnson and Rees-Mogg want to do with the country. It's the people on benefits and with precarious jobs who'll suffer most from loss of social and employment protections, and people in poor areas of the country who'll lose out on EU grants that our government has no interest in replacing.
Re the BF, no it didn't pull people out of poverty, but out of extreme poverty and hunger, yes. Do you think the really poor, the ones who didn't have enough to eat, would have been better off if José Serra had won in 2002?
Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!