Posted on 10/27/2002 1:11:05 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
SAO PAULO, Brazil - Latin America's largest nation was set to elect its first leftist government in four decades, with Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva commanding a wide lead over the ruling party's candidate in opinion polls.
Sunday's second-round vote pits Silva - a bearded former union boss - against Jose Serra, who left his job as health minister to run for office. At stake is stewardship over a resource-rich country whose economy is on the brink of recession, with soaring unemployment and staggering social inequalities.
A Silva victory could put the brakes on free-market reforms, give leftist movements in the hemisphere a boost and spell testier relations with the United States. 
Brazilian presidential candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva holds up a cake with frosting made as a caricature of himself at his home in Sao Bernardo do Campo, Brazil on Saturday Oct. 26, 2002. Lula will celebrate his birthday on the day of the election run-off, Sunday, Oct. 26. (AP Photo/Agilberto Lima-AE)
Silva, whose 57th birthday is on election day, was born to a poor farming family and dropped out of school to sell peanuts and shine shoes on the outskirts of Sao Paulo. At 14, he began working in a factory, where he lost a finger in a machine press.
Known in Brazil simply as "Lula," Silva began running for president in 1989 as the candidate of the Workers Party, urging landless farm workers to invade private property and calling for a default on Brazil's foreign debt, which now stands at US$230 billion.
However, in the three subsequent presidential campaigns, Silva moderated his radical tone. Foreign investors now appear calm after jitters earlier this year. A 40 percent plunge this year in Brazil's currency - due to alarm over Silva's stance - has begun reversing itself.
During a nationally televised debate Friday night, Serra - who has only 36 percentage points in opinion polls compared to Silva's 64 - tried to inject doubt on what his opponent's party stands for.
"I know the Workers' Party has changed its positions, but there are some people who still don't believe it," Serra said.
The concern that Silva remains a radical has resonated among some voters.
"Lula would rule Brazil with his true face: that of a radical unionist that scares investors from the country," said Jaime Batista Rocha, who was enjoying a beer in an outdoor refreshment stand in a lower-income neighborhood of Sao Paulo. Rocha, who said he would vote for Serra, also expressed concern about Silva's lack of administrative experience.
Still, Silva was so confident of victory that when Serra desperately appealed during the debate for his supporters to convince their friends to vote for him, Silva retorted: "I can't ask my voters to do that, or we'll have more than 100 percent."
The Workers' Party was planning a victory celebration in Cinelandia square in downtown Rio de Janeiro. On Avenida Paulista, Sao Paulo's main business avenue, Silva backers were setting up bleachers for a Sunday night victory party. Silva has been setting up a "government transition team" that would be announced on Tuesday if he wins.
The army said thousands of troops will be deployed to provide security for 115 million registered voters. Voting is compulsory in Brazil.
The challenges Silva's administration would face are huge.
Brazil - whose vast and varied geography has a bounty of natural resources - is among the world's richest countries. Yet the gap between the 20 percent poorest and the 20 percent richest Brazilians is four times that of the United States and eight times that of Japan.
During the campaign, Silva attacked the free-market reforms of current President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, who has ruled Brazil for two four-year terms and is barred from running for a third.
During the Cardoso government, Brazil privatized many of its giant monopolies and lowered import taxes, but failed to improve the lot of millions of Brazilians.
That has translated into support for Silva.
"I want things to change," said Regine Prado, a saleswoman at a music CD shop in Sao Paulo who planned to vote for Silva. This government is no good ... there are no jobs."
"This is the time for the Bush administration to set the factual and historical record straight: the current regime of President Chavez is illegitimate because it is based upon the systematic violation of the Venezuelan constitution in force in 1999," Hyde writes. "The Bush administration should also declare itself in sympathy with the pro-democratic civil-military coalition in Venezuela which seeks to restore democracy and should do so at once."
According to Hyde, "all the pro-democracy elements of the society including the genuinely democratic political parties, the labor unions, business associations, and religious institutions have been gathered for two days in coalition with a group of active duty military officers of flag rank demanding that President Hugo Chavez resign and that new, free and open elections be held."
Hyde is especially concerned that da Silva would make good on his statements to build and proliferate nuclear weapons: "There is a real prospect that Castro, Chavez, and Lula da Siva could constitute an axis of evil in the Americas which might soon have nuclear weapons and ballistic missiles (which Brazil had developed ended in 1990). This is the time to support the prodemocratic coalition in Venezuela and to help the people of Brazil understand the truth about Chavez so that they do not make a similar mistake and elect another pro-Castro radical who will neither help the poor, nor help their economy, nor live at peace with democratic neighbors."***
The officers want Chavez to resign and call early elections - or at least a quick referendum to measure his support. By Friday, their numbers had grown to 100, most of whom were stripped of their command for their roles in a brief April coup. The standoff has alarmed neighbors of this Andean nation, the world's fifth-largest oil producer and a leading oil supplier to the United States. They've condemned the insurrection call and endorsed a peacemaking visit this Sunday by Cesar Gaviria, secretary general of the Organization of American States. ***
This is the argument of the communist dictators of China. This ideas says a bustling economy should precede freedom. What motivation does an authoritarian regime have to give up its power after a middle class is created? What motivation does an authoritarian regime have to create a middle class?
Thomas Jefferson believed man has an inalienable right to liberty and does not have to serve any time under the boot of a tyrant. Democracy is not a governmental tool to be "mindlessly promoted." It is man's God-given right to participate in governance and rules under which he must live.
Is self-directed government only the privilege of a middle class or the educated? I could argue that the majority of poor Americans are not informed enough to choose their representatives. Some of their choices are obviously inferior. Shall we take away their votes?
Sadly, military needs in our own hemisphere might be one argument against a sustained war in Iraq.
They are not really communist anymore since Deng I'd say they are facist and the arguement is sound.
This idea says a bustling economy should precede freedom.
Democracy has nothing to do with freedom Democracy ussually destroys freedom.
What motivation does an authoritarian regime have to give up its power after a middle class is created?
It doesn't nor should it if a regime is successful in creating freedom and prosperity you want it to stay
What motivation does an authoritarian regime have to create a middle class?
If they are pro capitalist it will develop on its own.
Thomas Jefferson believed man has an inalienable right to liberty and does not have to serve any time under the boot of a tyrant.
Confusing freedom and Democracy once again I see
Democracy is not a governmental tool to be "mindlessly promoted." It is man's God-given right to participate in governance and rules under which he must live.
You think your individual vote actually effects policy eh.
Is self-directed government only the privilege of a middle class or the educated?
No educated mobs tend to not be much better than uneducated mobs I could argue that the majority of poor Americans are not informed enough to choose their representatives.
You'd be right.
Some of their choices are obviously inferior. Shall we take away their votes?
Yep. Democracy & Republics just allow the majority to run roughshod over minorities steal their stuff etc, also laws and regulations multiply endlessly sorry popular government in general doesn't work. It has in Switzerland but I know of no other case. In America it worked until Woodrow Wilson's time but thats little over 100 years since the constitution was ratified.
Democracy does not provide complete freedom to the individual. It is not possible to do that because rules of society must be established under which people live and to which a single individual may object. For example, I may want to exercise my freedom not to stop my automobile at any intersection of roads. Society has a stronger interest in enforcing my stopping to prevent injury and death to others. The founders of the United States of America created protection within our constitution of certain fundamental freedoms. There is no reason why other countries cannot do the same while providing a fundamental right of citizens to vote and participate in government.
I don't agree with your analysis and I think it is a defense of tyranny by elitism. Your argument is a lot of people are not smart enough to know what is good for them and therefore should have no voice until they become smart enough through economic improvement. Elitists like you would decide that common people were NEVER smart enough to vote. You want freedom but you deny it to the masses.
Free elections are not perfect but vastly superior to the tyranny of a self-appointed brutal dictator who comes to power by force.
What happens in a dictatorship with which I disagree? Do I raise an army of thugs to violently overthrow the leadership? I don't have elections as an option in that situation.
You are very disappointed with the way people vote. So am I. I cannot believe the American people elected Bill Clinton twice. I cannot believe Hillary Clinton was chosen U.S. Senator by the people of the state of New York. I cannot understand why Ted Kennedy is re-elected as a Senator from Massachusetts. Those examples, and yours, do not prove free elections are a failure. They prove democracy is imperfect and a majority can be stupid. Your alternative, however, is wrong because it proclaims people are not smart enough to have a voice in their government.
Forget about an entire country for a moment. Consider your local town. Do the voting citizens of your town have enough intelligence to select a mayor and town council? If not, who will select these leaders? You and your friends? What gives you the right to exclude the majority of your neighbors who might want another person to be mayor? Authoritarian leaders select themselves and reject, usually with force, any other choices. I cannot agree with you that tyrants are preferable to democracies though I agree with the stupidity of many voters' choices.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.