Special Reprint of Three recent exame covers stories on the brazilian economy

Anywhere in the world, electoral campaigns tend to exacerbate feelings - for better or for worse. It is natural and expected for rulers to gild the reality and for oppositionists to cloud it. Before such rhetoric shock, the voter can weigh pros and cons and make his decision on the directions of the nation, whether by rewarding the ruler with a renewed support, or promoting change of power. And thus the democracies go about. It is not about saying that voters are always right - there are many examples of choices that proved to be disastrous. But in the words of Winston Churchill, the great English leader: "No one pretends that democracy is perfect or all-wise. Indeed, it has been said that democracy is the worst form of government, except all those other forms that have been tried from time to time".
The Brazil of 2010, however, seems to follow a script that is a little different from the usual. In this campaign, nobody dared to face president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, protected by the record popularity and by economic indicators that make leaders of the developed world ashamed. Even the main candidate of the opposition, the PSDB party candidate José Serra, used images of Lula in his electoral campaign, in a doubtful strategy to also try to ride the pro-government wave. It resulted in a somewhat dehydrated campaign, without a real debate of what the last eight years were and of what we need to do from this point on. It is a pity. The Lula government is not, obviously, the disaster announced by many analysts before he was sworn into office, still in 2003. It is also far from the perfection sung in prose and verse by PT Party members and by the president himself. With all the limitations of the election period, a debate on how much we have advanced and what still remains to be done would be extremely welcome. It is this discussion that EXAME intends to promote on inviting some of the most prepared analysts from the Brazilian scene to discuss the Brazil of today, the country that will be inherited by Lula's successor.

The panorama they outlined shows a less colorful picture. In the economy, there are doubts with regard to the good moment. We are living the 16th year of monetary stability. Although very far from the Chinese level, Brazil today has a sustainable growth of about 4% to 5% - any number above this, like the figure of 7% expected for 2010, seems to be short of breath. The average growth of the GDP and income of the Lula years is significantly greater than those of the Fernando Henrique Cardoso years, and this impetus ended up redefining the social pyramid. We are, for the first time, a company in which the middle class is approaching the mathematical sense of the term - until recently, it was only a small contingent crushed among half a dozen millionaires and million of miserable people. The brightest side of Lula's legacy refers to the rise of a powerful domestic market, which has served as foundation to the companies set up in the country. Well-defined social policies make up the framework of the state of social well-being, set up since the 1988 Constitution. What we see today in the country's economy is not the exclusive merit of Lula. He himself inherited a stability plan that is at the foundation of the entire growth. His greatest feat was to protect the stability and allow the economy to prosper. It is not little.

The shine of the government gradually fades when we look at the changes needed in the economic structure. If we w ant to maintain the achievements, reforms are urgent - and therein lies the greatest opportunities for his successor (this issue was concluded on the 27th of September, before the election). Lula's reformist impetus was restricted to the first years, with the microeconomic agenda that is behind, for example, the real estate boom and the increase in credit. Since then, the government has preferred not to stir in any nest. To lead, however, is not to follow the consensus. It is, before everything, to create the consensus. If, to pave the future growth there is need to inconvenience, be patient - it is the burden that every politician must be willing to bear. The current government is prodigious in self-praise. However, to a careful observe, it becomes clear that Brazil has not attained development. We are rather in the middle of a long path. We have lost a lot of time, a mortal sin in a country with one of the most bizarre labor laws in the world, a maddening taxation structure, a bureaucracy that suffocates the entrepreneurial energy, a sanitation almost of African standard, an underdeveloped logistic infrastructure, a very bad quality education - the list goes on.
The next president must also face the mission of reestablishing some limits that have been lost in recent times. In democracies, party leaders and rulers play different roles. State Institutions should not serve political groups. State and government cannot be confused. Bodies of the press do not work for the government, but for the citizen. The powers are and must remain independent. As Churchill reminded, there is no alternative that is worth it outside democracy. To strengthen it, perhaps, is the first mission of the new occupant of the Planalto [Brazilian seat of government].