Lessons form Luis Lacalle Pou and Marina Silva
Aécio Neves thanks Marina Silva for her endorsment on October 17 after the failed election bid by the former environmentalist hopeful.
By Sebastián Lacunza
Editor-in-Chief
Editor-in-Chief
After a long decade of electoral wins for populist, centre-left Latin American administrations, the proposal of “keeping the good and changing the bad” has emerged in the political sphere at the expense of hard-line stances that have suffered overwhelming defeats in recent years.
Even though different traditions and economic developments must be considered according to each country, the assumption is that a period of growth, low unemployment rates and social progress generate an unreceptive ground for calls for radical change.
Electoral processes in Brazil and Uruguay, which have just led to the fourth Workers’ Party’s (PT) term and put the Broad Front on the verge of another win in a runoff, help to analyze the threshold of opposition political spin in two countries that share with Argentina much more than a trading bloc.
On the one hand, Marina Silva, a self-made epic figure who wanders electoral tickets. Secondly, Luis Lacalle Pou, the self-confident heir of the National Party mainstream, one of the oldest in the West. They offered different profiles but similar promises to improve on the achievements made.
However, the alleged electoral maremagnum didn’t take place and things have returned to relative normality. At the moment of truth, Silva and Lacalle Pou almost repeated the percentages won by their political forces four and five years ago respectively. So the test didn’t meet a happy end, neither in Brazil nor in Uruguay, and much less in Bolivia, where a more frustrating experience happened two weeks ago.
The Brazilian environmentalist was the bearer of the promises to keep the Bolsa Familia plan and to raise the education budget up to ten percent of GDP from the current six percent, while she also adopted the recipe book for lower spending, tax cuts and looking toward the US before the Mercosur. That is how she attracted, if only for a while, a sea-changing voting intention from Aécio Neves, who represented a more genuine conservative proposal.
Seen for a few days as a competitive bet against the Workers’ Party, Silva suffered attacks both from the left and the right that put her out of the race. Firstly, Dilma Rousseff participated in televised debates to ask to how the environmentalist would raise the education budget and lower taxes all at once. No answer appeared. From another angle, the little understood eco-capitalist project, the lack of technical staff, the poor relationship with her troubled party and the short haul flight of the empty words about honesty did nothing but ring alarms in a press (Veja, O Estado, Globo, Folha) which does not hide its preference for a more elaborate programme, such as Neves’ one.
A few days ago, Silva aired the last episode of her failed series. Far from the young peasant who walked among plantations, the former candidate became a queen letting Neves kiss her hand. The conservative hopeful allegedly promised her environmental glory and to improve on the transparency that the PSDB fails to show in local governance. The northern voters in the first round read the situation from another point of view and gave Rousseff the support she needed to be re-elected.
The axis was similar in Lacalle Pou’s approach: fighting crime, pushing for economic competitiveness and peace and love overall. If former president Luis Lacalle Herrera is a classic politician with a rancher style who didn’t hesitate to tackle former the Tupamaros and their alleged violent tendencies, his son, Luis Lacalle Pou, shows a BA City urban style, with the grace and warmth of a self-assured TV star, combining it with a catechetical prayer about dialogue and consensus.
The Broad Front left it all on the field trying to convince voters that behind the Fresh Air (an inner grouping within the National Party), father and son’s ideas were similar, for example, in opposing benefits for rural workers. The attempt was mathematically successful. First round 2009 — José Mujica, 47.96 percent; Luis Lacalle Herrera, 29.07 percent. In Sunday’s first round — Tabaré Vázquez, 47.89 percent; Luis Lacale Pou, 30.97 percent.
Moderate speech to attract the less persuaded voters makes sense. The economic slowdown or stagnation and new demands that go beyond being fed, having a salary and access to schools sow the ground for proposals that seek votes in between going further without losing what’s been achieved.
The first who followed this strategy, Venezuelan Henrique Capriles, almost achieved the goal. Driving a wide, eclectic front, the governor of Miranda fell far short of beating Hugo Chávez in 2012, shortly before his death, but was just 1.5 points off the weaker Nicolas Maduro in 2013.
After that experience, the economic and political crisis in Venezuela deepened. However, the opposition is immersed in a schism between Capriles’ sector and the one led by the now prisoner Leopoldo López, more familiar with de facto solutions. Allegations over bribery and even murdering go from one trench to another, saving Maduro from more serious electoral threats.
This raises questions about the effectiveness of the strategy in constituencies that, incidentally, are more likely to stop supporting 10-year ruling parties which, in some cases, do not manage to solve structural problems. Anyway, the previous (and still current) approach to confront Latin American governments considering them to be mere plutocrats, leftist fakes suffered historic defeats at polls, if not they missed the boat trying to get power through un-democratic shortcuts.
The lesson from neighbouring countries is that offering less Copernican changes requires more density and less marketing. More discursive and personal consistency, teams and, above all, autonomy from traditional media that have played the central opposition role, to the delight of governments. The game of journalism, whether in editorial strategy, economic convenience or mere error, may be to bet all or nothing. An alternative political agenda requires another type of leadership.
@sebalacunza