The Limitations of Elections in the Construction of Democracy

Igor Felippe Santos
Brazil Justice Net

27 Setiembre 2006

More than 125 million Brazilians will go to the voting booths on October 1st to vote for state and federal representatives, state governors, and the president of the Republic. It is the fifth popular vote for the presidency after the 21-year military rule.

The struggle for democracy during the 1980's united 80 different sectors of Brazilian society. From the right to extreme left, universal suffrage was the theme of mass movements at that time, with Brazilians participating directly in the national, political game through protests.

Paradoxically, the end of this period was exactly the first presidential election for the "New Republic," which saw the defeat of one of the representatives of the reformist movement, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. Fernando Collor de Mello was elected amidst much controversy and political maneuvering. "We were living in a pre-revolutionary situation in 1989," said historian Valerio Arcary, author of The Dangerous Corners of History.

Since the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution, elections have been consolidated, with free voting and equal weight among citizens. Direct voting can be considered a popular victory. "Universal suffrage never was the conservative or liberal banner: its movement throughout the world was an arduous victory of the working class. If elections were not so important, the dominant classes never would have offered so much resistance to its adoption," commented Jose Paulo Netto, a professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro.

Ricardo Gebrim, a lawyer for the "Consulta Popular Movement" believes that "the democratic struggles that developed during the military dictatorship were the central element in altering domination. The installation of democracy is a political revolution. It is something that the bourgeoise has struggling against tenaciously."

The New State, the "populist democracy," the military regime of the institutional Republic demonstrate the historical rejection of democracy by the dominant classes. Only two centuries after the French Revolution did that country have universal suffrage. Even here, during the days of "Diretas Ja," privileged groups impeded the Dante de Oliveira amendment in 1984, and afterwards raised other obstacles in the Constitutional Assembly in order to prevent progressive measures.

Currently, the country is, technically speaking, a democratic Republic. But, elections have not be sufficient to guarantee the construction of a meaningful democracy. The historical social inequities have not changed substantially, and the problems of the Brazilian underclass continue. According to the UN's Human Development Report 2005, the richest 10% of the population own 46.9% of the country's wealth. On the rural side, 1,6% of large landowners own 46.78% of the land, according to a recent government study.

The numbers from the UN report put Brazil as the eighth worst country in terms of the disparities between rich and poor. And no other country has such a dramatic difference in income. Besides this, not much has changed in this area over the last few years.

"The gap between Brazil 'on paper' and the 'real' Brazil is enormous. Even though we hang on to the idea of a representative democracy, we still lack instruments to make democracy work. Even with the restoration of important, sacred rights in our legislation, the most generous thing one could say about democracy in the 'real' Brazil is that it is limited.

Governments and Regimes

Valerio Arcary makes a distinction between governments who undergo elections and subsequent change, and liberal democratic regimes. "The regime is bigger than the government, and the only powers that are subjected to voting are the Legislative and Executive branches. Given this, the changes are superficial because the regime has a strength that feeds on itself." The political regime is formed by all the institutions connected to power that guarantee security of the public order, like the judicial system, means of communication, the military, the police, among others. Not one of these is subjected to popular voting. "It is the power of the great monopolies that control communications, intelligence agencies, the military, judicial branch and even Congress itself."

According to the 2001 research of Venicio Lima of the University of Brasilia, the television and radio systems of the country are controlled by eight families. And nearly 90% of the Brazilian media is the property of 15 family conglomerates.

"The economic groups of the regime that monopolize the means of communication are a central impediment to democracy. Candidates need to project a national image, and more and more this is being controlled by the media, which rewards those who behave themselves and punishes and ostracizes those who challenge the status quo," said Gebrim.

In regard to the police, the military, and the judicial system, appointments are made by the Executive powers. In spite of the fact that they are elected, those in the executive branch often make appointments and decision that are contrary to the public will. "It is an invisible and brutal power, which opposes the will of the people," said Arcary.

This is even more serious, says Netto, when the majority of the political parties are consortiums of "private interests", when they are not kept in check by effective controls of the society, when they have no commitments to well-designed programs, and when these parties have gelatinous character. "Legislative rulings rarely reflect popular aspirations, and the executive powers have an autonomy which allows them to operate in a dictatorial fashion."

According to Arcary, hegemonic thinking in the country mandates that public positions of power be occupied by technocrats, who supposedly are more efficient at managing the public machinery. This effectively eliminates the possibility of society changing the State. For example, there were no changes among second and third level secretaries/workers in the area of economy from the Fernando Henrique Cardosa government to that of Lula. In other sectors, there were some changes in ministers, but those in important posts were retained.

Another limitation in Brazil's democracy is related to the financing of the elections. The monopolies from the diverse sectors, like banking and industry, finance much of a candidate's electoral campaign, sometimes with illegal donations. They of course only finance candidates who do not threaten their economic power. So the neo-liberal economic polices are well-armored. "This domination only permits alternatives that have aligned themselves to the rules of the neo-liberal models. The margins of political decisions are narrow, and can only be made if they do not affect the political and economic bases. Not one contract with the mark of neo-liberalism can be altered," said Gebrim.

Hopelessness

In the last 25 years, the left had put in its political centerpiece the election of the leader of the masses defeated in the 1989 presidential election. Not that he is in power, that leader, Lula, has not kept his campaign promises, nor has he altered the neo-liberal economic policies, and further, has involved himself in corruption cases that have rocked the essence of the principal party of the left. This year's election will not be that much different that the last, in which Lula received nearly 53 million votes, the most any president of the Republic has received in the history of the country.

"Everyone is indicating that there will be a polarization between Lula and presidential contender Geraldo Alckmin. The distinction is that Alckmin is openly from the right. But in practical terms, there is no difference between the candidates: both will serve in the interests of financial capital," said Netto.

"We really do not have much hope that there will be change with the elections. There will be no debating between two distinct models. You can already see that there is no popular project in this election. The forces of the left are divided," commented Gebrim.

As the parties of the two candidates have no fundamental differences, there is a strengthening of the liberal democratic regime. Paradoxically, this opens space for the population to perceive the limits of the current level of democracy. "The regime is becoming stronger, but at the same time there are signs of its debilitation in that the next president, whoever it is, does not bring hope to the population. The lack of alternative projects for the country can be a element of crisis for the regime," predicts Arcary.

The electoral scene leaves the Brazilian democratic veins open and exposes them to its limitations and deficiencies. The lack of an alternative project in the elections may advance an understanding among the people for a need for more profound changes in democracy. In this sense, universal suffrage should be point of departure for a better political, economic, and social life for the Brazilian people.

Just as important as the victory for direct elections in the 80's was the national movement of the masses who took up this banner, who built a consensus for this victory. It is necessary that the collective will of the Brazilian society relive this progressive experience and return with other demands, such as a change in political and economic policy, and an end to social inequality.

Source: Revista Sem Terra, September-October, 2006