Best path for post-election Brazil

After a divisive campaign and President Rousseff's squeaker reelection victory, Brazil must follow Mexico's model and unite major parties behind a pact for reform.

AP Photo
President Dilma Rousseff blows kisses to supporters as she celebrates her victory in Brasilia, Brazil, Oct. 26.

In the past five months, three large yet poor democracies held elections for top leaders. In India last May, Narendra Modi won with an Obama-like slogan, “Yes, we will do.” In Indonesia, Joko “Jokowi” Widodo became president last week with “Yes, we can do it together.” 

In Brazil, however, President Dilma Rousseff was reelected last Sunday with this slogan: “New government, new ideas.” 

Largely gone was the theme of her first campaign in 2010 about inclusiveness, or embracing all Brazilians for can-do progress. Ms. Rousseff won by a slim margin, the smallest since 1894. She now faces a Congress with 28 parties, up from 22. Much of southern Brazil, home to most of the country’s economic strength, voted against her, especially around São Paulo. Her campaign failed to bridge the deep divisions that erupted last year in mass protests over corruption and poor government services.

As a former Marxist guerrilla, Rousseff still uses the kind of language that divides people by class. She promises dialogue with her opponents, but in her victory speech, she failed to mention her opponent, Aécio Neves.

After a particularly divisive campaign, she must look to Mexico for what should be done. After that country’s election in 2012, the three main parties got together and agreed on a package of major reforms that have since passed. The leading Mexican politicians essentially said, “Yes, we can.”

Rousseff cannot afford to wait. Inflation is high, growth is near zero, and the state-run oil company, Petrobras, has not made good in delivering big offshore wells. And the ruling Workers’ Party, after 12 years in power and early success under President Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, now seems more entrenched than progressive.

Wealthier countries such as the United States can perhaps afford polarized politics for a while. But less-developed democracies need leaders who can both deliver results and do so by working with opponents. Brazilians deserve the “dialogue” that Rousseff promises with her opponents, who represent half of Brazil's nearly 200 million people. If it succeeds, it might serve as a lesson for Washington.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to

QR Code to Best path for post-election Brazil
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today