The parties, candidates and issues that will determine Brazil’s future direction.

 

In 2005, the biggest corruption scandal in Lula’s administration exploded. Known as the “monthly payment scheme,” it brought down some of the main leaders of the PT and its allied parties.

 The scandal involved buying votes from Congressmen and misappropriating public funds as part of a scheme that included a number of banks and advertising agencies.

 Those dragged into the scandal include people like José Dirceu, the head of the President’s executive office and a possible successor to Lula; former PT chairman José Genoino; congressmen Roberto Jefferson (PTB) and Valdemar da Costa Neto (PR), both government allies.

 Lula’s popularity plummeted during the initial months of the scandal, but started to recover in the following year as the government implemented a number of populist policies, like Family Benefit, which distributes income to people living in extreme poverty. As a result, President Lula managed to win re-election against Geraldo Alckmin (PSDB), who enjoyed significant support in São Paulo, but was completely unknown in the north and northeast states of the country, which is the PT’s main electoral base.

As President Lula’s popularity rose, he faced a few political difficulties during his second term and recommended that Dilma Rousseff, previously Minister of Mines and Energy and the President’s

Executive Office, be nominated as his successor. While the “PT monthly payments” trial progressed, the opposition also found itself embroiled in corruption scandals in the Federal District. This had a massive impact on the political ambitions of Governor José Roberto Arruda (DEM), who had been a potential presidential candidate in 2010. At the same time, it was reported that the “PT monthly payments” scandal had originated at the end of the 1990s, and involved former governor Eduardo Azeredo (PSDB) and the same people who stood accused of running the more recent operations.
Although not personally connected with any of the people involved in the monthly payment scandal,
Rousseff was criticized by those of a more conservative ideology because of her clandestine militancy during the dictatorship. However, as both economic and social issues started to turn in their favor, Rousseff and vice-presidential candidate Michel Temer easily won the election in the second round, beating José Serra, whose popularity was shrinking.

Low Level Impact on Presidential Election

The arrest and incarceration of well-known people accused of running the “monthly payments scandal” is unlikely to have an impact, according to political scientists. If the presidential elections had been held in 2012, when the Mensalão trial began, it would probably have had a different result. The sentences handed out to the more significant of those accused had huge repercussions in the national media, as well as overseas.
 
 However, there were no real effects on the municipal elections held that year. The PT’s candidate, the ex-education minister, Fernando Haddad, became mayor of São Paulo, Brazil’s largest and most populous city, after to claim the beating José Serra, who Rousseff also beat the presidency in 2010. After appeals were made and lost by those condemned in the trial, prison sentences have been in force since November 2013. Political scientist Alberto Almeida said that as far as Brazilians are concerned, the fact that those involved were sent to prison belongs in the past. In general, Brazilians think “all politicians are thieves.”

Debates: Mid-Level Impact

Elections in many countries hinge on debates – where political candidates buckle under the pressure and make a mistake. During the mayoral elections for Sao Paulo in 1985, the then candidate Fernando Henrique Cardoso was asked if he believed in God. He botched the answer, projecting an image of himself as an atheist. His adversaries took advantage of this to alienate the more conservative voters.

A few political journalists who moderate debates have criticized the current model used for presidential debates, which significantly restricts the candidates. During the first round of elections, the debates are not particularly relevant because much weaker candidates, with little chance of winning, are present. The very strict debating rules make it difficult for candidates to debate their ideas with one another. The debates may become more important if there is a second round of elections, however the candidates’ advisors tell them to minimize risk.

However, the debates are an excellent opportunity to offer voters more insight into what each candidate represents. A chronic problem for debates is the time they are broadcast, always after 10 PM, which means that working-class people, who are generally low-income, do not get to watch them.

Party Alliances: No Impact

Based on data from past elections, voters do not appear to prioritize the makeup of party coalitions.
The two main reasons are the ideological weaknesses of the parties, more concerned about creating arrangements that will provide them with certain advantages, and voters’ ignorance of political rules, which means that they are more often influenced by the candidates themselves rather than their parties. Only the more ideological voters are likely to complain about an unsuitable alliance and they are too few in number to change the result of an election.
MSLGROUP’s report on Brazil’s 2014 Presidential Election details key issues to understand & monitor in this Brazilian election. We invite you to read our insights here:

HATA KUBONYEZA KA Like Tu Hapo JUU HUTAKI; BONYEZA BASI MPEDWA
PIA ISOME NA HII HAPA CHINI INAKUHUSU 

KWA WATU WAZIMA TU; CORAZON AMEACHIA VIDEO NYINGINE AKIKATIKA AKIWA NUSU UTUPU ICHEKI HAPA.