The bold decision to attend the World Economic Forum in Davos doesn't align with President Dilma's electioneering speech about the state of Brazilian public finances. It's not credible that she used the term "psychological warfare" to dismiss the criticism her government receives for no reason.
The president used authoritarian military jargon to position herself as the defender of the country against those critics, who she called unpatriotic. This is not the first time she or her political mentor Lula have used this vulgar trick to accuse the opposition of working against the country, purposefully confusing the faction currently in government on a provisional basis with the Brazilian state.
It is natural for a political party to want to remain in power for as long as possible, but alternation of power is one of the strongest characteristics of democracies. Election years necessarily bring the expectation of change, even when, as now, the ruling party is in an advantageous position in the presidential race.
Therefore, President Dilma's year-end message, markedly focused on electioneering, did not bring encouragement to those hoping for a change of course. From this perspective, the speech goes against the expressed desire of the majority, who want change, as demonstrated by the same opinion polls that show Dilma as the favorite in the October election.
Just as the main opposition candidates, Aécio Neves of the PSDB and Eduardo Campos of the PSB, must seek alignment with this desire for change in order to have any electoral chance, President Dilma should also be attentive to this need for alignment with this yearning, at the risk of losing an election that seems won nine months before the polls close.
Accusing his critics of psychological warfare in the face of such clear facts only demonstrates stubbornness and malice, confirming one of the most damaging personality traits to good governance, and introducing a touch of political distortion that was not part of his usual repertoire.
The president is not being asked, in the midst of an election year, to acknowledge that the average GDP growth under her administration is the lowest in the last 20 years, nor that inflation continues to exceed the target ceiling in reality, which only doesn't happen in the official scenario because administered prices are artificially contained.
In an election campaign, it might be an effective tactic to say that inflation is within the target range, when the objective should be to keep it at the center of the 4,5% target, which is already excessively high, but it won't be possible to convince the financial market that this issue is under control.
It is also unacceptable for them to publicly state that the primary surplus is being met, when it is known that the surplus for the past year, even though it was small, was only achieved with extra funds that entered the government's coffers at the end of the fiscal year, after several creative accounting tricks throughout the year.
It will be difficult for President Dilma to repeat this triumphalist speech in Davos, before the largest international investors, without further deepening mistrust. The facts show that emerging countries are growing faster than us, with less inflation. Research on productivity reveals the country is stagnant, unable to advance in a fundamental area of competitiveness in the globalized world because basic issues such as improving education have not been addressed.
I described President Dilma's decision to go to Davos as bold at the beginning of the column, not only because of the reaction from her radical supporters, but above all because of her own personal convictions.
Unlike Lula, pragmatic and without ideologies, who felt very comfortable as an attraction at the World Economic Forum, President Dilma has firmer ideological convictions, which until recently prevented her from privatizing important sectors of the country's infrastructure, and she probably wouldn't feel at ease on that stage. However, she held her nose and decided to travel to deliver her Letter to the Brazilian people at the heart of the major decisions of globalized capitalism. But she will need more actions than promises. More realism than fantasies.
The president used authoritarian military jargon to position herself as the defender of the country against those critics, who she called unpatriotic. This is not the first time she or her political mentor Lula have used this vulgar trick to accuse the opposition of working against the country, purposefully confusing the faction currently in government on a provisional basis with the Brazilian state.
It is natural for a political party to want to remain in power for as long as possible, but alternation of power is one of the strongest characteristics of democracies. Election years necessarily bring the expectation of change, even when, as now, the ruling party is in an advantageous position in the presidential race.
Therefore, President Dilma's year-end message, markedly focused on electioneering, did not bring encouragement to those hoping for a change of course. From this perspective, the speech goes against the expressed desire of the majority, who want change, as demonstrated by the same opinion polls that show Dilma as the favorite in the October election.
Just as the main opposition candidates, Aécio Neves of the PSDB and Eduardo Campos of the PSB, must seek alignment with this desire for change in order to have any electoral chance, President Dilma should also be attentive to this need for alignment with this yearning, at the risk of losing an election that seems won nine months before the polls close.
Accusing his critics of psychological warfare in the face of such clear facts only demonstrates stubbornness and malice, confirming one of the most damaging personality traits to good governance, and introducing a touch of political distortion that was not part of his usual repertoire.
The president is not being asked, in the midst of an election year, to acknowledge that the average GDP growth under her administration is the lowest in the last 20 years, nor that inflation continues to exceed the target ceiling in reality, which only doesn't happen in the official scenario because administered prices are artificially contained.
In an election campaign, it might be an effective tactic to say that inflation is within the target range, when the objective should be to keep it at the center of the 4,5% target, which is already excessively high, but it won't be possible to convince the financial market that this issue is under control.
It is also unacceptable for them to publicly state that the primary surplus is being met, when it is known that the surplus for the past year, even though it was small, was only achieved with extra funds that entered the government's coffers at the end of the fiscal year, after several creative accounting tricks throughout the year.
It will be difficult for President Dilma to repeat this triumphalist speech in Davos, before the largest international investors, without further deepening mistrust. The facts show that emerging countries are growing faster than us, with less inflation. Research on productivity reveals the country is stagnant, unable to advance in a fundamental area of competitiveness in the globalized world because basic issues such as improving education have not been addressed.
I described President Dilma's decision to go to Davos as bold at the beginning of the column, not only because of the reaction from her radical supporters, but above all because of her own personal convictions.
Unlike Lula, pragmatic and without ideologies, who felt very comfortable as an attraction at the World Economic Forum, President Dilma has firmer ideological convictions, which until recently prevented her from privatizing important sectors of the country's infrastructure, and she probably wouldn't feel at ease on that stage. However, she held her nose and decided to travel to deliver her Letter to the Brazilian people at the heart of the major decisions of globalized capitalism. But she will need more actions than promises. More realism than fantasies.