Why I think Marina Silva will be Brazil's Next President

David A. Rondon, Esq.¹

Last Wednesday, tragedy struck in Santos, Brazil when the plane carrying charismatic young Socialist Party presidential candidate Eduardo Campos crashed, killing Campos and seven others. The week that followed saw 100,000 mourners pay their respects to Campos in his funeral in Recife, while the country, political establishment and media went into official mourning. Meanwhile, a new political reality has emerged making the Brazilian presidential election in October into a real horse race. In the most recent poll published by Datafolha this past Monday, Marina Silva, Campos' vice presidential candidate and as of today the new Socialist Party candidate, polled ahead of challenger Aecio Neves of the more established Social Democratic Party and polled ahead of President Rousseff in a second round poll.² In my opinion, based on both the economic downturn presently affecting the country and the turmoil and outrage that has swept the country since 2013, this week's events have made it very likely that Silva will be elected Brazil's next president.

Since she polled 20% as the third way candidate in 2010, Marina Silva has been perhaps the most important figure in Brazilian politics who has managed to avoid being tied to a political machine. She is the mixed race daughter of Amazonian rubber tappers who became famous by fighting for environmental rights beside martyred activist Chico Mendes. She went on to become Brazil's youngest Senator, joined Lula's government as environmental minister and then resigned in protest against laws that she felt hurt the Amazon. In 2010, despite a strong national economy and the continuing hold of Lula on Brazilian politics, she polled 20% of the vote as a third way presidential candidate drawing attention to corruption and environmental degradation. Although she failed to convince the judiciary to allow her to establish her own political party last year, she nevertheless managed to enter the 2014 race as Campos' vice president. Now, fate in the form of Campos' tragic and untimely death has catapulted her into the national limelight at a time when I believe, it is most likely that she can win the presidency.

Marina Silva is seen in Brazilian public opinion as a woman who is honest, has principles, and is “of the people” at a time when ordinary Brazilians are visibly furious about government corruption, are sick of their political elite, are terrified about crime, and are worried about the state of the economy. Her personal story of success in the face of terrible odds, including serious illness, separation from her family, discrimination, and poverty, is inspiring to a nation in search of someone to admire in the political landscape. She has also managed to remain free of entanglements with corruption and power, resigning her environment ministry in 2008 when she could not get her principles to be upheld by the government. Most importantly, she applies to a cross-section of Brazilian voters. An evangelical Christian, Silva is appealing to a section of social conservative voters that typically would not vote for a left-wing candidate. She also appeals to young voters disillusioned with the political establishment, as well as middle class Brazilians frustrated with poor public services. Finally, she can take votes away from Rousseff's Workers Party (PT), despite its powerful political machine, due to the left wing ideology of her party and because, based on her past association with the PT, she is viewed as an ally of the working class.

Meanwhile, although President Rousseff still holds the advantage in the race, she is faced with problems that would be problematic for any incumbent. Her main advantages are time (there are only 2 months left before the election), the power of her political machine, and the fact that the success of the World Cup has overshadowed the protests that preceded it. Her main weaknesses, however, are her own political image, which has not recovered since the protests last July, widespread insecurity and violence, and the economy. An economy heading for recession is the bete noir of any incumbent president, and this is exactly what the economy in Brazil appears to be doing. As was recently reported by the International Business Times, Brazil's economy is heading towards recession in the wake of the World Cup, having shown steady declines for five straight months.³ Rousseff's government recognizes the trouble that it is in. Just today, the government sought to increase lending by 150 billion reais as a stimulus to growth in the months leading up to the election.⁴ This is the second time that Brazil has done this in as many months, a response to the government's struggle to contain inflation, which is also a problem. Analysts believe that this indicates that the government sees the economic slowdown as more significant that what it expected.⁵

If Silva wins, she will be confronted with the difficult tasks of reactivating Brazil's economy, halting the spread of crime and violence, reducing inequality, eliminating corruption, and stopping the destruction of the Amazon. Moreover, Silva will win if her candidacy inspires millions of Brazilians over the next two months to believe that change is possible, not unlike another famous black politician, U.S. President Barack Obama. She will, inevitably, be charged with the hopes and aspirations of millions of Brazilians, a task which, if Obama's story is any indication, will be difficult to fulfill. However, if she does win, she will be Brazil's first black president, first mixed race president, and first evangelical president. She will also become a major leader for the Latin American left. All of these things will inevitably draw forces that are anathema to these groups to try everything in their power and in the media to discredit Ms. Silva. However, I believe, if history is any indication, if Ms. Silva connects with her voters over the next month, they will be unable to stop her. The question will then become, can she follow through? This is a much harder question to answer.

1David A. Rondon is an immigration attorney, human rights advocate, and specialist on Latin America & the Caribbean. He presently owns, operates and manages Rondon Legal, a solo practice law firm based in South Florida and the Washington D.C. Metro Area focusing on providing immigration, disability, international law, and other legal services to immigrants across the United States. He has helped hundreds of immigrants in the United States obtain release from detention, win removal proceedings, unite with their family members abroad, obtain humanitarian relief such as waivers and asylum, and obtain status and permanent residence as investors or due to their professional skill. A graduate of George Washington University Law School (JD, 2007), New York University (MA, Latin American & Caribbean Studies, 2004), and Georgetown University (SFS, 2002), Mr. Rondon is Venezuelan-American, married to a dual Brazilian-American national, and has lived, worked and traveled across Latin America and Europe.

2See, e.g., Stephanie Nolen, “Marina Silva's unlikely climb in Brazil's presidential race,” The Globe and Mail, Aug. 19, 2014; Wyre Davies, “Marina Silva becomes formidable opponent in Brazil poll,” BBC, Aug. 20, 2014; James Young, “After tragedy, Marina Silva a surprise contender in Brazil elections,” Fusion, Aug. 18, 2014.

3Meagan Clark, “Brazil's World Cup Hangover: A Shrinking Economy,” International Business Times, Aug. 15, 2014.

4Matthew Malinowski & Raymond Colitt, “Brazil Seeks to Boost Credit by $66 Billion as Economy Lags,” Bloomberg, Aug. 20, 2014.

5Id.

Polarization and its Aftermath...Shared Prosperity or Renewed Conflict?

On March 5, 2013, leftist Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez died after a long battle with cancer.  Chavez was a much more significant figure than just a president of a country in Latin America.  Hailed as a champion of the poor and reviled as the man who single-handedly drove Venezuela's economy and security situation into the ground, Hugo Chavez and his ideology, like that of Juan Peron, Fidel Castro and Augusto Pinochet before him, spread across Latin America, to the point where at his death, his views had influenced elections, helped depose governments, and helped create such opposition to foreign governments aligned with him that these were overthrown.  With Chavez's death, the end of the terms of US President George W. Bush and Brazilian President Lula da Silva, and the "resignation" of Cuban leader Fidel Castro, Latin America has been left without its most polarizing political figures.  This has occurred at the same time as the region has risen economically to be one of the most important in the world.  For the past five years, economists, journalists, politicians and pundits around the world have hailed Latin America's "economic miracle" in contrast to the global recession followed by anemic economic performance in the U.S. and Europe during the same period.  This has been particularly the case in South America, where income inequality has fallen and GDP has risen in many countries.  But is this the whole story?  Latin America has a modern history of ideological polarization, class conflict, repression and pervasive inequality.  Is this history really being left behind by a region that is now inserting itself forcefully into the global marketplace while improving the lives of its citizens?  Or is the polarization that led figures like Hugo Chavez to power still present in Latin America?  As I write, hundreds of thousands of people have been taking to the streets in cities across Brazil, including Sao Paulo, Latin America's financial capital, largest city and the center of globalization and wealth in South America.  Protests which began based on a rise in bus fare have morphed into serious challenges to the priorities of Brazil's government and corporations, including lack of social spending on health and education, insecurity and high crime, and overspending in anticipation of the 2014 World Cup.  Last night, I watched on Globo TV news (Brazilian television) as protesters mounted the roof of the Brazilian Congress.  As a Venezuelan, I can't help but think to my country's own history and the Caracazo of 1989.  That protest, too, began with an increase in bus fares, and ended up being the country's bloodiest political affair.  Its aftermath, analysts all agree, led directly to the election of Hugo Chavez in 1998.  The economy in Brazil, while performing remarkably well from 2007 - 2011, has clearly hit a rough spot in 2012-2013, and inflation is the highest it has been in years.  The protests are a clear reaction to this, as well as the rise in crime.  What is amazing is how the protests are being coordinated.  In the past, political leaders called for political protests on television or in the newspaper.  Today, it is all coordinated through social media.  As has occurred in the Middle East in countries like Turkey, Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria (before the war), social media has been principally behind the organization of Brazil's protests.  What comes next is anyone's guess, as there is no clear leadership behind this movement.  The demands are clearly legitimate.  At the same time as such protests occur, we have countries in Central America being overrun by drug cartels and transnational criminal gangs.  These groups are fueling an exodus of migrants to the United States, while from Mexico, the tide has slowed considerably.  Latin America is a complex place in the era after polarization.  Economic miracle or not, the ghosts of the past remain.  The actors are different, but some of the problems are the same.  This blog will be used to voice some of my impressions as to the changes taking place across Latin America.  I hope you enjoy.