On Oct. 1, Brazilians voted in national presidential elections. The candidate of the Workers’ Party and current president, Luís Inácio Lula da Silva, or Lula, won 48 percent of the vote. Next in the race was Geraldo Alckmin, candidate of the Brazilian Social Democracy Party and former governor of São Paulo, with 41.6 percent.
Alckmin is more overtly pro-imperialist than Lula. His party represents the more overtly pro-imperialist sector of the
|
Predictions during most of the campaign indicated that Lula would win the simple majority of the votes needed to forestall a runoff against Alckmin. But he did not. Because Lula received less than 50 percent of the votes cast, he and Alckmin will go head to head in a runoff set for Oct. 29.
Although Lula has a large working class base, both he and Alckmin were competing for which could better represent the Brazilian ruling class in the face of both Brazil’s poor and working classes and the U.S. imperialist bankers. The Oct. 2 Wall Street Journal noted this, calling the runoff a “win-win” for foreign investors.
One of the decisive factors leading to the runoff was candidate Heloísa Helena from the Party for Socialism and Freedom (P-SOL), a left-wing break from the Workers Party. Heloísa Helena finished a distant third in the electoral race, garnering around 6.85 percent of the vote.
Helena became a factor after a string of corruption scandals tied to Lula and his party is made her a more appealing option to his disillusioned supporters. Polls conducted by the Datafolha Research Institute show that Heloísa Helena gained momentum in the polls in mid-September. Alckmin also received a major boost due to the scandals dogging Lula’s presidency.
A fiery opposition Senator from the state of Alagoas, Heloísa Helena is a founding member of the P-SOL. She was expelled from the Workers’ Party in December 2003 together with three other prominent congresspersons for refusing to support the party’s policies. The dissidents gathered enough support to form the P-SOL in 2004, just one year after Lula assumed the presidency.
The split revolved primarily around the Lula government’s pro-imperialist economic policies. The Workers’ Party-led national government continued to rely on the neoliberal practices of the previous government—a government the Workers’ Party had fiercely criticized. Millions of dollars continued to be handed over to the IMF, the Paris Club and other international financial institutions while the Brazilian poor lacked healthcare, housing, education and food.
Helena’s popularity was just enough to keep Lula from getting a simple majority and—much to his displeasure—forced a second round in the elections. Helena is asking her supporters to abstain from voting in the runoff later this month.
Workers’ Party accommodation with capitalists
Founded in 1980, the Workers’ Party was a force of opposition to bourgeois interests for most of its history. Prior to the foundation of the party, Lula had been a metal worker and union leader known for his radical speeches attacking the Brazilian ruling class.
The radicalism that won Lula his a solid working class following also won him the fierce hatred and contempt of the capitalist class. His first three attempts at the presidential elections—1989, 1994 and 1998—all ended in defeat under a relentless barrage of media attacks targeting his working-class background and lack of formal education.
However, changes in the party’s strategy and platform had become quite apparent by the time the 2002 elections came around. Lula had chosen José Alencar, a wealthy textile magnate, as his running mate. Business suits had replaced his unbuttoned shirts. Lula had softened his once furious speeches and now sought conciliation with the powerful business interests, whose support was key for electoral victory. The metamorphosis earned him a new nickname among Brazilians: “Lula light.”
To seal the deal, Lula gave investors and bankers the assurances they needed the most: If he won, international debt payments not be disrupted and agreements with the IMF would be honored. Victory soon followed.
The history of the Workers’ Party is a classic example of the limitations of social democracy. To participate, one must at the very least work within the constraints of what is acceptable to the bourgeoisie. To be a successful contender, however, one must prove the highest loyalty to the interests of the capitalist class.
Lula’s first term brought record profits for wealthy bankers and financiers. Should he win a second term, it will be largely thanks to their support.
The P-SOL now is playing the role of the left-leaning opposition once played by the Workers’ Party. As the distance between Lula and the workers increases, the P-SOL likely will experience further growth. A similar left-wing split has occurred in the Landless Worker’s Movement with the formation of the more militant Movement for the Liberation of the Landless.
The Brazilian ruling class is tolerating “Lula light’s” social democratic path to ease the pressure from Brazil’s powerful working class. But as soon as the ruling class feels confident in the domestic and regional capitalist stability, it will return to its routine exploitation—with the working class demobilized by social democratic illusions.
The struggles ahead will be decisive in the creation of militant organizations based on class struggle and anti-imperialism.
