Energy and politics

The political project that the PT (Workers' Party) and its allied parties have been leading in Brazil since 2003 has brought about profound transformations in the country; this is undeniable. By any criteria one might choose, from the fundamentals of the economy to income distribution, the governments of Lula and Dilma have been changing Brazil, and for the much better. We emerged from the turbulence and insecurity of the FHC (Fernando Henrique Cardoso) government, which led us to the IMF three times, which conducted a deeply irresponsible privatization process that jeopardized the nation's future. And, on top of everything, it did not develop any policies that could distribute income, quite the opposite of what has been done in the last ten years, which have witnessed a remarkable change in the lives of millions of Brazilians, for the much better.

What the left had dreamed of for decades, the idea of ​​a broad mass market, has become a tangible reality, and not even the international crisis that has shaken the world since 2008 has managed to change the course followed by the Lula and Dilma governments. In recent days, there has been an attempt to create a negative climate, a constant tactic, especially based on the idea that Brazil was on the verge of a blackout similar to the disaster of the early 2000s, when FHC (Fernando Henrique Cardoso) truly plunged the country into darkness. They didn't even refer to that disaster. They trumpeted the disaster of the Dilma government, especially after she announced the reduction of energy tariffs for the people and businesses. Here, in the criticism, the pro-PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) and the media were united, a lasting union, wielding absolutely coincident arguments.

President Dilma, by keeping her promise to reduce tariffs to levels higher than previously announced, and by addressing the nation to announce the measure and criticize the chronic catastrophism of the opposition and the media—though she didn't name them that way—provoked an angry reaction from both the media and the opposition. The easy, petty, weak, almost destitute accusation was that she was campaigning. However, it was a matter of duty for a leader—to inform the population about a measure that would impact their lives.

It's a shame, for the mainstream media and the opposition, that this was a measure that benefited the population. It's a shame that they first tried to discredit the announcement. And then they even admitted it, in this case only the opposition from the PSDB party, by appealing to the Judiciary to question the president's appearance on national television, even wanting to censor the color red – in that case, Estanilau Ponte Preta would be right, it's the Festival of Nonsense that plagues the country, the Febeapá, and with official airs, coming from a legally registered party in the country.

The opposition is a bit bewildered – and when I refer to it, I'm not separating the so-called hegemonic media, that group of families that control the Brazilian media discourse, or want to control it. Sometimes they say Lula will be a candidate, and by all means they want to prevent his political action, as if he lacked the credibility to act, to move, to continue helping the political project of which he was the main protagonist. Other times, they say Dilma is the candidate, and they also want to silence her voice, as if they could. I think the great task that falls to them, and now I'm only speaking of the strictly partisan opposition, is to say what they want for Brazil, what project they defend for the Nation. Nobody knows.

Of course, by opposing the reduction of energy tariffs, by so vigorously defending energy companies without thinking about the people and economic development, it reveals that the intention is to return to the disaster of neoliberalism. Everyone would very much like to know, clearly, what the project is. If it is neoliberalism, let them say so, let them put it on the table so that the debate can flourish. Brazil has already rejected this project. There have been three elections in which the Brazilian people said no to the madness of that model. If it is not, because it is inappropriate, let them say what it is. The vague "management shock" that they sometimes present is not acceptable. "Management shock" rhymes with the word austerity, which is used extensively in a Europe in crisis that only talks about cutting salaries, firing, creating unemployment, reducing the value of the minimum wage, very different from a Brazil that has been living on the verge of full employment and that in the last ten years has increased wages by 60% in real terms.

President Dilma even joked with a journalist who asked if she was running for reelection – "Are you launching me?", and continued on without giving much importance to the fact. Surely, from everything that is known, she will be. She has led a government that qualifies her for it; the people have recognized her admirable leadership, they feel that the country has a safe direction, has jobs, income distribution, and doesn't want to lose that. And she, we know, is fully aware of how much there is still to be done. She is fighting to end extreme poverty, hoping to end it by 2014. Her second term, very likely, will be to advance even further, and always in the sense of Brazil creating the conditions for an increasingly supportive and just country, where development always means income distribution, not concentration. A Brazil that gives dignity to all Brazilians.