When history may rhyme…in Brazil

If you are in your sixties like me, and particularly if you were born in France, you remember 1968.

How did it start?  Sociologists and politologists have come up with involved theories to explain the so-called “Events of May ‘68”.   Call me a skeptic.  Yes, there had been months of student protests in Nanterre, then the most politically “progressive” campus in Paris, but frankly, that was no news.  The temperature rose when the authorities decided to put an end to the disorders, and student unions called for demonstrations on other campuses and in lyçées (high schools).  But that was hardly earth shattering or critical for what turned out to be the most impactful event in France’s last half century.

From my own perspective, a key factor was that May was the month that preceded life-defining tests for millions of French youths: the dreaded baccalaureat which is the necessary key to enter university, the concours (competitive exams) to enter the top universities (so called grandes écoles), and the year-end university exams.  We were all stressed and apprehensive, and for many, the possibility of postponing these scary trials, even temporarily, AND having fun in doing so, was appealing.

Sure, student protest had gained international visibility, mostly in the US against the Vietnam War, but many American trends and influences came to France without threatening the stability of the country.  

It is also true that the French may have been tired of the quasi-regal leadership of President de Gaulle and at first may not have minded students poking him in the eye so to speak.  The initial government reaction lacked coordination, and the authorities quickly second-guessed themselves, thus increasing confusion.  None of that is very unusual or likely to trigger what turned out to be a quasi coup.

But when the French government started to look and act weak and disheartened, and its leader failed to appear (he even disappeared for a while), then several dissatisfied groups and political opportunists felt emboldened to act: unions called for national strikes and some of them for industrial sabotage[1], opposition parties called for large demonstrations and even tried to force a change in government at the famous Charlety mass meeting.

As we know, all the disorder came to an abrupt end when President de Gaulle reappeared and forcefully declared on TV that he wouldn’t leave power.  Overnight, political and social calm were restored.  But as we also know, de Gaulle resigned the following year and the fallouts of May 68 endure to this day.

In retrospect, I still believe that the huge upheaval of May 1968 didn’t have to happen.  It all started with students defying authority and trying to postpone dreaded exams, and enjoying what at first was frat house partying and horseplay.

History doesn’t always unfold according to vast socio-economic Marxist trends.  More often than not, it does, but now and then major tremors and changes can be traced to the acts of an individual or to an improbable chain reaction.

Which brings us to Brazil.  What is happening in Brazil today is not a repetition of May 68, but as Mark Twain once said, history rhymes. 

The unexpected uncovering of the so-called Lava Jato corruption scandal and its consequences have dealt very severe body blows to Brazilian democracy and I would say it is weaker than it has ever been in the last half-century.  To wit:

-         One president was impeached and forced to resign[2], her successor is currently in jail and the current president is under a corruption cloud and commands a record low 6% approval score;

-         Dozens of congressmen have been indicted and jailed, including both leaders and rank and file, governing coalition and opposition members;

-         While the judiciary branch, in the end, did allow justice to be done, the heavy lifting (investigative work and sentencing) was carried out by the Federal Police and state-level judges, and the highest federal judicial instances vacillated more than once.

The public is rejecting main stream political parties and their leaders, it rejects the president, it is divided about the judiciary system as many either distrust it or positively reject its condemnation of ex-president Lula.

In the middle of this rising chaos and polarization, some actors are starting to test the system.

One is the PT, the party of ex-President Lula.  It is interesting to remember that Lula has often believed that a chaotic situation would help the PT take power.  As Lula still leads all opinion polls by a wide margin, Gleisi Hoffmann, the president of the PT, this week warned that keeping Lula in jail would lead Brazil to chaos.  The PT is also launching a Lula presidential campaign despite him being ineligible.

In doing so, she sets on a direct collision course with General Villas Boas, the Chief-of-Staff of the Brazilian Armed Forces, who twice publicly warned[3] the Supreme Court that the law must be respected and nobody is above the law.  The general’s Twit received the support of several high ranking generals, some in active duty others retired.

Truck drivers have been the second, unexpected, and much more immediately damaging force.  As Petrobras had won the right to set prices daily in accordance with world markets, truck driver unions organized massive road blockages last May to protest diesel price hikes[4].  The government quickly capitulated, forcing a price freeze by Petrobras, then offering gas price cuts to be financed by the government, then backtracked again, then offering truck drivers a pricing table for the freight that they carry.

In the span of a few weeks, the PT and the truck drivers have exposed the extreme weakness of the government, the former by brazenly demanding immunity for its leader, the latter by strong-arming it and hurting the economy.  In the meantime, criminality has surged in Rio de Janeiro and elsewhere, and no high caliber presidential candidate has risen from the field to offer people hope that the turmoil will soon be over.

There might be a respite in the above struggles, but I doubt they will end well.  The pricing table proposed by the government to the truck drivers and the compensation offered to Petrobras (but not to other fuel importers) have little chance to work in a country as vast and an economy as segmented as Brazil.  To make things worse, the drivers threw the first punches and clearly hit their mark.

As to the PT, it has the most popular leader (Lula) and the most effective organization of any Brazilian party.  As I wrote above, I think it is convinced that it will fare better than anyone else should chaos develop; it also sees that the current government can be pushed around with impunity.

Brazilians have a culture of moderation, but events can unwind faster than expected, or take an unexpected direction.  In the current climate, the system offers little in terms of guardrails, so that an unlikely possibility can quickly become reality, a moderate skid can develop into an uncontrollable crash.

History doesn’t repeat itself, but it does rhyme.

---

[1]  Interestingly, the communist-affiliated CGT union was proactive in safeguarding equipment and machinery that other unions wanted to damage.

[2]  President Dilma Rousseff was impeached for public accounting faults but she was also widely criticized for the endemic corruption at Petrobras while she presided over its board of directors and afterwards while she headed the government.

[3]  The first warning came on the eve of the Supreme Court’s decision as to whether to incarcerate or not President Lula.

[4]  It is ironic that taxes represent a higher percentage of gas prices than Petrobras’ profit margin.  As such, they were the main factor in pushing gas prices to high levels.

Southern Winds

Finance Minister Levy is leaving his post by year end.  If so, he will have lasted just one year.

Almost a year ago, soon after his nomination, I wrote[1] that while he was highly qualified for the job and would “find some initial freedom of action… [which] could last a couple of years..,[his] remedies and policies.. are the exact opposite of what the PT wants and what President Rousseff has supported in the past. I also wrote that Brazil needed to make profound reforms which “are political in nature and go far beyond the competency of the Minister of Finance”.
 

My misgivings were proven valid even sooner than I expected.  Minister Levy didn’t receive the political backing from his president nor from the PT in congress.  As a result, he could only raise some taxes but couldn’t significantly cut public spending.  The last straw was the government refusal to hold the line at 0.7% for the 2016 primary budget surplus.

 

Nelson Barbosa, currently Planning Minister and a traditional proponent of active government intervention in the economy, will replace him.  He will get along better with President Rousseff but I don’t think that it will mean better decision-making.

Ravaged by corruption scandals, economic recession and depressed commodity prices, the future looks bleak for Brazil.  The political opposition is by and large clean (perhaps because it didn’t have access to the levers of power) but weak and lacking grassroots organization.

Further south, the winds are beginning to blow in another direction.  Mauricio Macri was elected president of Argentina and wasted no time in liberalizing the foreign exchange regime via a dirty float system.  He also cut taxes on the main grain exports which got him the exporters’ agreement to bring back, daily, some $400 million of grain export proceeds.  Finally, Finance Ministry’s and the Central Bank’s teams look very good.

I have no doubt that the Argentine recovery will be rocky at times: undoing several years of ill-advised policies takes time and is politically difficult; the opposition is well organized and deeply resentful of its loss; finally, the world economies are still weak.

But Macri has a number of factors in his favor, besides having adopted good policies and chosen good people:  Argentina is smaller than Brazil, with a population of 44 million vs. 206 million; its population is better educated and economically less unequal; last but not least, he was clear in his campaign as to what his policies would be and voters, in their majority, backed him.

In Venezuela, the heirs to Hugo Chavez have suffered a heavy defeat in the latest congressional elections.  Clearly, the population is unhappy with the abysmal performance of the economy.  External pressure is also mounting for the regime to respect human rights.  More than anywhere else in the region, low commodity prices are shaking political and economic foundations.

Elsewhere in South America, commodity prices are forcing government to revise their policies, although with distinct flavors.

 

The education, social and political reforms which the Bachelet government wanted to carry out have faced fiscal realities: the money is not there; the haste with which they were introduced met a pushback from both moderate politicians and a population facing other priorities.

In Colombia, where oil accounts for half of exports, the government is scrambling to raise tax revenues, ease oil and gas permitting, hold inflation in check with a more aggressive monetary policy and, at last, intervention in the foreign exchange market.  The wild card is the peace process with the FARC: the rebels are increasingly isolated as their foreign backers are short of funds (Venezuela) or considering a change in strategy (Cuba).

In conclusion, the implosion of the hard commodity markets has wrecked havoc in South America.  Populist policies have run out of money and change is forced upon these countries.  The choice is between liberalization, repression and chaos.

Argentina has chosen liberalization, Venezuela has chosen repression, Brazil is heading towards chaos.  Chile and Colombia are so far sticking to a middle of the road regime of open economies and politics.  If the prices for oil, copper and iron ore weaken further in 2016, the pressure will rise further on governments to “do something”.  The more unpopular they are, the harder it will be for them to heed to moderation and rationality.

Optimists will say that a cycle of populism in ending in South America, and that the example of Argentina will favorably influence its large neighbor to the north, Brazil; that Chileans and Colombians are unlikely to turn their backs on two decades of social and economic progress; that Chavismo has lost the legitimacy, credibility and financial means to rule as it wishes.

Pessimists will argue that economic and political liberalism is a foreign concept in South America and that voters not so much want that as an interventionist government largely financed by buoyant commodity prices.

Let me be a guarded optimist.  I do believe that most people aspire to a better life for their families and themselves, greater freedom and pride in their country.  In Latin America, they will also have realized that much of the government bonanza of past years was due to external factors (China’s appetite), not bureaucratic excellence; they have also seen the true cost of government largesse.  For all the above, I think that a new cycle is starting, first in Argentina. 

2016 promises to be interesting.

---

[1]  12/7/14 Brazil’s uncertain future post.

Igauçu Falls (Epilogue)

Last week, General Antonio Hamilton Martins Mouraõ, the real head of the Southern Military Command (CMS), was relieved of his charge and assigned to an administrative position in Brasilia.

This was in response and punishment for the general having publicly been critical of the President Rousseff; according to people who attended a conference held last September, the general would have said that, should the President leave office, it would not be a destabilizing event but would mean that “incompetence had been cast aside.”

The general got in even deeper trouble in October when he encouraged members of his Command to attend a ceremony to commemorate Colonel Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra who had just died.  The colonel had led the DOI-CODI, a controversial Army unit responsible for “internal security” during the military junta days.

There is no question that the general was out of turn and got what he deserved.  It is however noteworthy that he was so upfront in voicing his opinions.  Perhaps he felt that he was saying out loud what many of his peers were thinking.

At this point, I do not expect Brazil to become so dysfunctional that its armed forces would feel compelled to intervene.  Nevertheless, there are only two large and well organized social forces in Brazil: the Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT) and the Armed Forces.  The former is the ruling political party, it is in trouble and it knows that it is not the only alternative to chaos.

Iguacu Falls, (Part Two) - an exercise in fiction

In Salvador, an early morning thunderstorm washed away torn paper posters, empty soda bottles, as well as an odd assortment of abandoned sneakers, broken wood sticks and debris of the violent confrontations from the previous day. Now and then, an armored police van could be seen speeding silently down empty avenues, lights flashing.

This scene was repeated, with minor variations, in many large cities.  But in the heart of Brazil’s manufacturing, the so called ABC Region outside the city of São Paulo, TV crews were beaming back scenes reminiscent of Apocalypse Now: an acrid haze from still burning tires floated in the streets; blackened wrecks of police cars and buses haphazardly dotted the urban landscape; rows of shops with broken windows and gaping doors added to the vision of destruction and irreality.

TV viewers were served non-stop images of violence from the day before, of interviews with victims and of seemingly deserted cities.  Shocked by the extent of the destruction, many businesses had not opened and, by and large, people had decided to stay home.

Despite the endless televised group discussions and opinionated pundits, viewers were still struggling to make sense of what they had seen: massive crowds surging between concrete city blocks like the sea at high tide, companies of red shirted militias, some on foot others riding motorcycles, giving chase to straggling demonstrators.  But two videos held viewers in their seats: one of a policeman, his clothes set on fire, slowly crumbling to the ground in a silent scream, the other of a police squad, beating two men senseless with their clubs, long after these had stopped moving.  Had the police put their lives on the line in defending the safety of the citizenry or had they behaved like thugs?

The government seemed just as shocked and dumbfounded as the public.  The presidential office had released no communique so far, while the Interior Ministry had condemned the violence and declared a state of emergency.

The main opposition party had been divided as to how to react.  But on September 23rd, the leaders of the PSDB came out with a unified message that President Dilma  Rousseff should resign or be impeached, recalling the words of former PMDB icon, Ulysses Guimaraes, back in 1992 when then President Collor was himself under threat of impeachment for corruption:” He thinks he still he is president, but he no longer is”.

Attuned as ever to where power was shifting, and conscious of its own weakened position as a result of the indictment of several of its most prominent members, the PMDB issued a communique calling for “ the voice of the people to be heard, and for politicians to respect it”.

Fearing an imminent vote of impeachment, the PT and its allies called for “an immediate popular show of support in favor of democracy and against the rabid forces of oppression”.

Soon, thousands of armed milicias petistas and sympathizers took to the streets in Brasilia, encircling the seat of government, the Planalto , as well as the Brazilian Nacional Congress, ostensibly to protect both.  When Vagner Freitas and a handful of CUT followers stormed the news set of TV Brasilia to denounce a presumed coup, the temperature rose by several degrees.

In Goianias, São Paulo, Rio, Salvador, and elsewhere, supporters of the government in place occupied or blocked access to strategic centers of power or industry.  Having been widely criticized for the use of excessive force, federal and local police forces stood by.

The 23rd came and went.  On the 24th, public employees unions called for a general strike.  They were soon followed by those of Petrobras, Banco do Brazil, as well as those of the likes of CSN, Usiminas, GM, Ford and Fiat.

On the 25th, air traffic controllers joined the movement.  The country had ground to a halt.  The PT had effectively broken into several factions, the more extreme being the more vocal, the PMDB was not sure whether to make effective its dominance of the governing coalition, and the opposition was, as usual, divided and not ready to govern.

Brazil slowly drifted into chaos, as basic services were no longer provided, private industry was on strike, the supply chains of commerce were no longer functioning, and the streets were no longer safe.  Change needed to come, and it did on the 26th.

Iguacu Falls, (Part One) – an exercise in fiction

It had been a hot summer, in more ways than one.  China had made the biggest headlines; its vital economic signs, as could be inferred from its periodic statistical releases, were worse than most pundits had expected; in private, many wondered whether 2015 GDP growth could be flat or even negative rather than settling around the +6.9% or so trumpeted in public..

The dizzying gyrations of the Shanghai stock market, the increasingly erratic government interventions, and finally industrial catastrophes like the explosion at the Tianjin port frayed nerves around the world.

A still slow growing U.S., a convalescent Europe and a teetering China were wrecking havoc for many commodity dependent countries.  Low oil prices had hit Colombia hard, but Brazil had fared worse.

The country of the future and likely to remain so, as skeptics had dubbed it, Brazil had hugely benefitted from the commodity boom which started in 2003.  Indeed, it had been able to finance a generous social program and ambitious oil and gas related investments without difficulties and without needing to correct glaring structural economic weaknesses.

The discovery of huge offshore oil and gas reserves had triggered a renationalization of sort at Petrobras, had encouraged the federal government to intervene more than ever into various sectors of the economy, and as was to be discovered later, had given birth to institutionalized corruption on a scale never seen before.

The Great Recession of 2008, the profound change in investor sentiment and the uncovering of the Petrobras corruption scandal gave birth to the biggest crisis that Brazil had experienced in three decades.  Petrobras, weighed down by huge debts contracted to carry out the government’s pre-sal ambitions, came close to debt restructuring; the international financial markets effectively closed to Brazilian borrowers; the abrupt economic slowdown cut federal tax revenues while public spending was only slightly reined in, leaving the country with a flat to negative budget primary balance.

But most of all, the petrolao scandal tore apart the political system, leaving Brazil with either a weak presidential or parliamentary regime, depending whom you talked to.

During her reelection campaign, President Rousseff and the Workers Party (PT), had scoffed at the necessity of budgetary cuts; likewise, by delaying cash outlays and having Congress amend the budgetary Law, the government had avoided more immediate trouble.

Now, President Rousseff had to backtrack on her promises, which proved difficult as her own party strenuously opposed spending cuts and the population was ill prepared to accept them anyway.

Against this ominous background of incipient economic, institutional and financial crisis, the government blindingly stuck to its authoritarian ways in nominating a new president of the House.  This backfired badly, and its political ally, the PMDB, managed to elect one of its own, Eduardo Cunha, to the job.  With PMDB member Renan Calheiros already holding the presidency of the Senate, the government had dealt itself an incapacitating blow.

The PMDB quickly made it known that it no longer was a junior partner of the PT, and Eduardo Cunha made it known that the Legislative Branch had responsibilities and powers equal to the Executive’s.  Bewildered, frustrated, the PT dragged its feet when called upon to vote for painful measures, leaving President Rousseff in a weakened position to negotiate the support of the PMDB.  The politics of Brazil became very complicated, with a weakened Executive, a powerful Legislative with no mandate to govern, and a divided, ineffective, opposition.

Yet matters were getting much worse.  Continuing revelations by the investigating magistrates, leaks and plea bargaining by a slew of suspects further destabilized the various branches of government.   The presidents of both the House and the Senate were formally investigated for corruption, along with a number of senators, congressmen and former governors from the parties that had formed the governing coalition, namely the PT, PP and PMDB.

Fighting for his political life, Eduardo Cunha opened his own House inquiry into suspected malversations at the National Bank of Economic and Social Development  (BNDES), as a means of pressuring the government into letting him off the hook.  The Executive and the Legislative were now at loggers head, despite being led by the same political coalition.

As September came, further revelations of mishandling of funds surfaced: billions lent by BNDES to Cuba, Venezuela and others in support of the same engineering and construction companies that were already suspected of corruption, and with similar results: overbilling and (credit) losses in the billions.  Worse, former President Lula, the highest profile politician in Brazil and  the PT leader, was formally indicted of influence peddling.

His response was immediate and virulent: on September 17, in Sao Bernardo do Campo, flanked by thousands of PT and United Workers’ Central (CUT) members waving red flags and giant portraits of him, former President Lula denounced the hidden agenda of the opposition, ridiculed PSDB leader Aecio Neves’ “pathetic attempt to clear his way to the next presidential elections”, and threatened that any attempt to put him under preventive custody would be “opposed by the Brazilian people”.

Standing to his right, Wagner Freitas, president of the CUT, remained impassive. Yet all of the members of the press in attendance remembered his fiery declarations, a month before, when talks of impeaching President Rousseff were growing:

-“ what is coming to Brazil today is intolerance…. We are the defenders of a national project to bring better conditions to all, and this means, right now, getting down in the street, and digging in, weapon in hand, in case they want to overthrow President Rousseff.  Any attempt against democracy, the lady [Dilma Rousseff] or President Lula, we will be the army that will confront those bourgeois in the street.”

Like the mythical straw that broke the camel’s back, the indictment of President Lula, after the long string of revelations at Petrobras, Eletrobras and most recently at the Federal Railway System, struck a raw nerve in the population.

Brazilians were already suffering from high inflation, negative growth and accelerating layoffs most visibly in the automotive, oil and gas and related sectors. Yet while they were facing hard times, midlevel managers and politicians admitted to having stolen tens of millions of dollars.

There were no institutions to believe in anymore.  Even the Judicial Branch, which had gamely exposed the misdeeds, was resented for ruining the national mood, and the common man still doubted very much that the miscreants would spend significant time in jail anyway.

A huge wave of popular anger and despair spread throughout the country.  Just like in March, calls for a nation-wide day of protest rose spontaneously.  On September 20th, a huge protest march was to assemble in Brasilia to “throw the bums out”, and a massive sit-in was to start in front of the Planalto until the President resigned.  Another demonstration would gather in front of President Lula’s residence any many more would spring up around the country.

Meanwhile, both the PT and the CUT decided to organize counter-demonstrations against what they viewed as politically orchestrated efforts to unseat the President.  Some on the fringes of these organizations were eager to “retake the streets” and viewed the Venezuelan, motorcycle mounted, milicias bolivarianas, as a worthy model; after all, these had succeeded in dispersing and discouraging popular demonstrations.  There had been casualties among the population but no militia has been prosecuted.

The PSDB was ambivalent about the marches.  Neves and his associates viewed them as genuinely popular, and a wave to surf on politically, especially since their party didn't have the kind of structure and manpower the PT had.  But they also realized that this limited manpower wouldn't allow them to control mass demonstrations should they get out of control.  If that happened, the PSDB would be held responsible.

In the end, Neves publicly supported the forthcoming demonstrations and marches but advised PSDB members to attend individually and not in representation of the party.

September 20th was hot, especially in Brasilia when temperatures rose to 98F at midday.  According to police estimates, over 8 million people descended in the streets nationwide.  Some 50,000 police personnel were deployed to contain any violence.  Unfortunately, by the end of the day, confrontations between opposing movements had degenerated into deadly violence.  Accounts vary as to who started, but in the end, the excesses of a few thousands triggered massive and often uncontrolled popular reactions.  Police attempts at mob control often became desperate efforts to save their own lives, and live ammunition was used.

In all, there were 120 deaths and some 2,000 casualties that day.  Brasilia declared a national state of emergency and a 9pm curfew.  September 21st came, and with it, a new future.