SOURCE/LINK: http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/bbc/2014/10/1533406-apos-apoiar-serra-em-2010-economist-pede-voto-em-aecio.shtml
Após apoiar Serra em 2010, 'Economist' pede voto em Aécio
·
16 outubro 2014
·
1comentários
Ilustração
do artigo da Economist mostra Carmem Miranda com frutas podres no turbante
A revista britânica The Economist defendeu
o candidato do PSDB à Presidência, Aécio Neves, em artigo publicado nesta
quinta-feira, 11 dias antes das eleições. "Neves merece vencer. Ele fez
uma campanha persistente e provou que pode fazer suas políticas econômicas
funcionarem", disse a publicação.
Em 2012, a Economist foi criticada pela
presidente Dilma Rousseff após a revista pedir a demissão do ministro da
Fazenda, Guido Mantega. No ano seguinte, a publicação voltou a fazer duras
críticas ao PT e comparar Dilma à presidente argentina Cristina Kirchner - pelo
que disse ser demasiada interferência na economia do país.
Um
artigo publicado pouco antes do segundo turno das eleições em 2010 defendia o
então candidato do PSDB José Serra, dizendo que ele "seria um presidente
melhor do que Dilma Rousseff".
Mudança
O
artigo desta quinta-feira, intitulado "Por que o Brasil precisa de
mudança", a revista volta a afirmar que a promessa de crescimento deixada
pelo governo Lula deixou de ser cumprida. E diz que, após os protestos
"era de se esperar que os brasileiros dispensassem Dilma já no primeiro
turno".
Aécio Neves, de acordo com a Economist,
"está tendo dificuldades em persuadir os brasileiros mais pobres de que as
reformas que ele defende - de que o país necessita urgentemente - irão
beneficiá-los, e não prejudicá-los".
"Se
o Brasil quiser evitar outros quatro anos à deriva, é vital que ele consiga
fazê-lo", afirma.
O
principal trunfo de Dilma, segundo a revista é "a gratidão popular pelo
pleno emprego, maiores salários e uma série de programas sociais eficientes - não
só a transferência de renda do Bolsa Família, mas casas a preços populares,
bolsas estudantis e programas de eletricidade e água no Nordeste".
"São
verdadeiras conquistas. Mas ao lado delas estão erros maiores, mas pouco
palpáveis, na economia e na política".
A Economist defende as propostas de Aécio Neves para
a condução da política econômica e diz que ele é assessorado por uma equipe
"impressionante", citando o ex-presidente do Banco Central, Armínio
Fraga.
De
acordo com a publicação, a campanha de Dilma tem se beneficiado de "falhas
de Neves como candidato", como a suspeita gerada pela descoberta de gasto
de dinheiro público na construção do aeroporto em Cláudio (MG), em terras de um
parente, mas afirma que, "com sorte", o apoio de Marina Silva ajudará
a elegê-lo.
Em evento nesta sexta-feira, a presidente Dilma comentou o
posicionamento da publicação: "As revistas do mundo, tanto estrangeiras
quanto nacionais, têm direito de tomar uma posição política. Agora, eu sei a
filiação da Economist, é uma revista ligada ao
sistema financeiro internacional".
Contexto
"É
de se esperar, porque é uma revista de posicionamento liberal, economicamente
falando", disse à BBC Brasil o economista e professor da ESPM Rio Roberto
Simonard.
"A política da Dilma é mais intervencionista do que a do Lula e a Economist acha que este maior grau de intervenção
seria o responsável pelo Brasil estar apresentando menores índices de
crescimento. Junte-se a isso o fato de que Armínio Fraga, cotado como ministro
da Fazenda de Aécio, é alguém muito respeitado no exterior."
Simonard diz não acreditar que o artigo poderá ter impacto entre os
eleitores brasileiros. "Pouca gente lê The Economist. Mesmo
que a campanha de Aécio use o artigo, isso é algo que tem dois lados. Pode ser
visto como uma coisa positiva ou negativa, por ser considerado intervenção
estrangeira", diz.
No
início de outubro, a revista de economia americana Forbes publicou, em seu
portal online, um artigo dizendo que "o Brasil está melhor" após
Dilma e que ela deverá fazer as mudanças necessárias na política econômica. Um
mês antes, a mesma revista havia chegado a listar "cinco razões pelas
quais a presidente Dilma Rousseff não deve ser reeleita", mas voltou
atrás.
Brazil’s presidential election
Why Brazil needs change
Voters should ditch Dilma Rousseff and elect Aécio Neves
·
·
·
IN
2010, when Brazilians elected Dilma Rousseff as president, their country seemed
at last to be living up to its huge potential. The economy expanded by 7.5%
that year, setting the seal on eight years of faster growth and a steep fall in
poverty under Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, Ms Rousseff’s political mentor and the
leader of the centre-left Workers’ Party (PT). But four years later that
promise has disappeared. Under Ms Rousseff the economy has stalled and social
progress has slowed. Sanctions-hit Russia aside, Brazil is by far the weakest
performer in the BRIC club of big emerging economies. In June 2013 over a
million Brazilians took to the streets to protest against poor public services
and political corruption.
Ever
since the protests the polls have shown that two-thirds of respondents want the
next president to be different. So one might have expected them to turf out Ms
Rousseff in the first round of the country’s presidential election on October
5th. In the event she secured 41.6% of the vote and remains the narrow
favourite to win the run-off ballot on October 26th. That is mainly because
most Brazilians have not yet felt the economic chill in their daily
lives—though they soon will. And it is partly because her opponent, Aécio Neves
of the centre-right Party of Brazilian Social Democracy (PSDB), who won 33.6%,
has struggled to persuade poorer Brazilians that the reforms he espouses—which
the country urgently needs—will benefit rather than harm them. If Brazil is to
avoid another four years of drift, it is vital that he succeeds in doing so.
A campaign upended by fate
Mr Neves’s task has been made harder by a campaign
scarred by tragedy and upended by fate, as dramatic as a Brazilian telenovela. Two months ago the third-placed candidate, Eduardo
Campos, died in a plane crash on his way to a rally. His former running-mate
and replacement, Marina Silva, surged into the lead in the polls. An
environmentalist, Ms Silva is the darling of the protesters, the symbol of a
“new politics”. But attractive though her lack of a political machine might have
seemed, it was a liability. Faced with sometimes underhand attacks from Ms
Rousseff, Ms Silva wobbled. It did not help that she is an evangelical
Protestant in what is still a largely Catholic country. In the end her 21%
share of the vote was scarcely bigger than she managed in 2010. Rather than a
“new politics”, the run-off will repeat the battle between the PT and the PSDB
that has defined all Brazil’s presidential elections since 1994.
In this contest, Ms Rousseff’s main asset is popular
gratitude for full employment, higher wages and a clutch of effective social
programmes—not just the Bolsa Família cash-transfers but low-cost housing, student grants,
and rural electricity and water programmes in the poor north-east. These are
real achievements. But alongside them are bigger, but less palpable, failures,
both on the economy and in politics.
The troubled world economy and the end of the great
commodity boom (see article) have hurt Brazil. But it has fared worse than its
Latin American neighbours. Ms Rousseff’s constant meddling in macroeconomic
policies and attempts to micromanage the private sector have seen investment
fall. She has made few efforts to tackle Brazil’s structural problems: its poor
infrastructure, high costs, punitive tax system, mountains of red tape and a
rigid labour code copied from Mussolini.
Instead,
she has revived Brazil’s corporate state, dishing out favours to insiders, such
as tax breaks and subsidised loans from bloated state banks. She has damaged
both Petrobras, the state oil company, and the ethanol industry by holding down
the price of petrol to mitigate the inflationary impact of her loose fiscal
policy. A bribery scandal in Petrobras underlines that it is the PT, and not
its opponents as Ms Rousseff claims, who cannot be trusted with what was once a
national jewel.
This
corporate state of voracious insiders is symbolised by Ms Rousseff’s absurdly
large coalition, and her 39-member cabinet. It costs Brazilians some 36% of GDP
in taxes—far higher than in other countries at a similar stage of development.
No wonder the government has been unable to find the extra money for health
care and transport that the protesters demanded. And what is worse, Ms
Rousseff, who lacks Lula’s political touch, shows no sign of having learned
from her errors.
More of the same will no longer do
Ms Rousseff draws strength from Mr Neves’s flaws as a
candidate. The left’s baseless insinuation that he would axe Bolsa Família has stuck because he is a member of Brazil’s political
establishment—his grandfather died on the eve of becoming president in 1985—and
he carries a whiff of the old politics: as governor of Minas Gerais, he was
found to have spent public money on a small-town airstrip which just happens to
be close to his farm. For the past 12 years Lula, who still has the ear of the
poor, has caricatured the PSDB as a party of heartless fat cats.
Yet Mr
Neves’s policies would benefit poor Brazilians as well as prosperous ones. He
promises to put the country back on the path of economic growth. His record,
and that of his party, makes his claim credible. In the presidencies of
Fernando Henrique Cardoso in the 1990s, the PSDB vanquished inflation and laid
the foundations for Brazil’s recent progress; and in two terms as governor, Mr
Neves turned Minas Gerais, Brazil’s second-most-populous state, from a
financial basket-case into an example of good administration with some of the
country’s best schools. He did so largely by cutting bureaucracy. He has an
impressive team of advisers led by Arminio Fraga, a former Central Bank
governor who is respected by investors. As well as a return to sound macroeconomic
policies, his team promise to slash the number of ministries, make Congress
more accountable to voters, simplify the tax system and boost private
investment in infrastructure.
Mr
Neves deserves to win. He has fought a dogged campaign and proved that he can
make his economic policies work. The biggest threat to social programmes is the
PT’s mismanagement of the economy. With luck the endorsement of Ms Silva, a
former PT member born in poverty, should bolster his case. Brazil needs growth
and better government. Mr Neves is likelier to deliver these than Ms Rousseff
is.
·
No comments:
Post a Comment