Interview with Francisco de Oliveira, sociologist, former founder of PT Francisco de Oliveira, a sociologist, was one of the founders of the Workers Party. In mid 2003 he broke with the party, becoming frazer criticism extended to President Lula. I consider this one of the best tests of government squid on dilma, marina, efeagá, PSDB and politics. Simple language, clarity, and interesting statements, especially regarding that: "So in this future history, Lula will be the great confirmer of the system (capitalism)."
sociologist and founder of the PT says that "Lula is more privatized than FHC '
UIRA
MACHADO DE SAO PAULO
Sheet - What is your assessment of the election debate in the first round?
Francisco de Oliveira - Out of the horror that the poor have the toucans, Sierra and Dilma not have radically different positions: both are developmental, they want industrialization ...
The field of conflict between them is really small. But on the other hand, this means that there are problems crucial that neither side is willing to address.
What type of problem?
It is no longer to prove that the Brazilian economy is viable. This has been overcome. The main problem is the distribution of income, for real, not by means of palliatives such as Bolsa Familia. This has not been approached by neither.
policy in Brazil is a place where she does not move anyone. There is a consensus very shallow and apparently without dissent.
gives the impression he does not care to vote for one or the other ...
is true. It's a choice between bad and worse.
What is your opinion on the movement of churches preaching an anti-Dilma vote because of his positions on abortion?
is a bad sign, a regression. Brazilian society is in urgent need of reform, and politics is going in the opposite direction, setting a false consensus.
Abortion is a serious public health issue. No use to go back and attend evangelical catholic. This does not save women from abortion issues poses.
What does the entry of this theme in the debate?
represents the consensus down due to economic success. Such conservative views are gaining strength. There is a tendency to be nice to everyone. In this context, nobody wants to take positions that are considered radical.
With economic progress, there is a feeling of resignation that spreads and settles, people are fearful, conservative. This is happening in Brazil.
Celebrities Class C and D shows up for a march of progress trickle. They do not want to fight, do not want conflict. So Lula peace and love worked.
If people become conservative, which explains the division of Brazil when he considered the vote in the Sierra and Dilma?
is a drag. It means that the issue of regional inequality is still very striking. Indeed, this is another issue that is out of discussion. The two do not want to address the issue. What they have to say about regional problems? What to do with the depressed regions?
Underneath it all is the old story that St. Paul is a locomotive pulling 25 empty wagons.
This tension exists. This imbalance will create the feeling that there is a poor side and a rich side. As if there was a vote buying, electoral corral, and the other conscious. There is indeed a fracture, and it resurfaces in election periods.
Marina appears as a third force sustainable?
I think not. The ascension is by her lack of radicalization of the two main, and the question of the environment is relatively neutral. I see no echo in society, except in a superficial way. There is an issue that touches the nerves of people. The green wave is passing.
Mr.. was among the first to break with the PT in 2003, and went about doing harsh criticism of the president. Lula, however, extremely popular term ends. In your opinion, what place the Lula government will occupy in history?
In my view, in the future, we will read like this:
Vargas is the creator of the modern Brazilian state, in all respects. He sets the state of all institutions able to create an economic system. And get a vigorous process of industrialization. Lula, it is worth saying, is not comparable to Vargas.
Juscelino Kubitschek is what kicks the industrialization forward, but he was not a statesman to create institutions.
The military regime is strongly industrialist, pursues a path already open and use the power of the state with an audacity that anyone had used.
Then comes a period of high inflation and uncertainty out of control.
neoliberal cycle is Fernando Henrique Cardoso and Lula. I put both together. It's just that Lula is leading Brazil to a capitalism that has no back. Everybody thinks it's doctrines, but rather the opposite.
How so?
Lula is more privatized than FHC. The major trends will arming and he uses state power to confirm them, not deny them. So in this future history, Lula will be the great confirmer of the system.
He is nothing opposing or statist. This is an optical illusion. Rather, it is privatized on a scale that Brazil has never met.
This wave of mergers, mergers and acquisitions that is sponsoring the BNDES has a clear sense privatized. For the country, to society, the citizen, what good is that Brazil has the largest meat company in the world, for example?
In terms of development strategy, division of income and improved welfare of population, this does not mean anything.
In 2004, Mr.. Lula blamed the defeat of Marta in the prefecture. What is your assessment of Lula's election as cable Dilma?
He ends up being a negative, even with his high popularity. The second round was a warning. There is a kind of weariness. This overt, that pun, it angers profoundly middle class. It is the thing to demoralize the opponent, to lower the debate. Lula has always done so.
As Mr.. assesses the claim that the behavior of Lula threat to democracy?
I see as a threat. But Lula has a component inherently authoritarian.
In what sense?
He does not listen to anyone, except a very restricted circle, and he has little appreciation for the institutions.
I've known him since the year of St. Bernard. He has a tendency, which matches perfectly with the style of Brazilian politics, the first to combine a small group and then do the assembly. He always acted like that.
not personal, it is the Brazilian culture, he was fatted it. But he did not want to overthrow democracy.
This is the culture policy in which it was created: the unions, which is a very authoritarian world, much like the broader political culture. And he does well, knows how to move in this world.
institutions in fact are not cheap anywhere. But he does not threaten democracy in terms of more direct provision is not a dictator. I think these statements an exaggeration, an evil, even. They have a very clear political content.
Now, right wing of the PT, Jose Dirceu ... This project is more authoritarian.
And this wing would gain more power in a government Dilma?
I think not. Lula because he watches closely. Lula did not like him [José Dirceu]. Afraid, even the political point of view. He came from another extraction, which Lula detests. An extraction specifically political, leftist.
Mr.. Lula has said he had killed the civil society. What can happen in government and Sierra Dilma? Was there a difference?
governments toucans are terrified the people. This is not an expression. It is a matter of social class.
They have no contact with the real everyday people. They do not ride buses, no experience the life of the city. They walk or subway, which is amazing.
The city is great, there is violence, we know. But they do not know how is the transport, as are hospitals, public schools. There is a real break, they lost the experience of everyday reality. And it does not go by statistics, only through experience.
Because of this, their government is always one thing on top. They are uncomfortable with the popular. This is a marked difference compared to Lula. About
Dilma I do not know. She may also suffer from this problem.
But from the viewpoint of evolution and function of social movements, which one is preferable?
Here is a difficult issue. Toucans, with this horror the poor, always tend to increase the fracture, the separation. Toucans are hopeless ...
