The front-runner in Brazil’s coming presidential contest has done a decent job running its biggest state. But to keep his lead he must get campaigning

Dear Tomas Rosa Bueno,

Firstly, I shall congratulate you. Your English is very fluent.

But secondly, and unfortunately, I must say to all Economist readers worldwide that they lost a bit of time reading your comment, which is simply part of the brainwashing Lula's supporters (the "petralhas") are trying to submit the whole country to. Don't lie, Thomas. Don't make up stories. It does not sound good. At all. Ballots will show you I'm right. See you in October.

Dream on!

Mr Serra's "lead in the polls" is a fiction based on two simple facts: recall and deception. First, Mr Serra is a figure known in the whole country mainly for being the candidate who lost against Lula in 2002, and for being the governor of the wealthiest state in Brazil. Second, Mr Serra has been extremely careful all this time not to be seen as part of the opposition to Lula. Once the campaign starts and sides are chosen, he will no longer be able to hide the fact that he's the *opposition* candidate, the man behind *all* attacks against Lula in the past seven years, a leading member of Mr Cardoso's government and friends with the worst Brazil has in terms of crooked politicians. Then his chances will disappear, *if* he ever decides to run against Lula and doesn't choose instead to secure the governorship of São Paulo and wait for a better opportunity.

Then, Mr Serra's "good governance" of São Paulo is a myth entertained by his many friends in the press - and nothing else. Under his leadership (and that of his predecessors from hsi same party), São Paulo's education system has been dismounted and now ranks fourth - from the bottom - among all Brazilian states, according to the ENEM, the national secondary education assessment held every year. His public works have been made at the expense of looting the state's social security net, closing hospitals and shelters, paying miser salaries to state medical staff, teachers and police, and by "saving" on materials and specs for roads and the subway, which has led to several disasters including the one that killed seven workers in a subway building site three years ago. Speaking of subway, Mr Serra's close collaborators are also deeply involved in the Alstom bribery scandal under investigation by several law-enforcement agencies throughout the world.

"The same as Dilma but different" is the new propaganda line his campaign staff will try to sell later this year, and it has the same value as all agit-prop slogans. Nobody in the Brazilian political spectrum could be as far removed from Mrs Rousseff as Mr Serra, the man who pushed for the selling of Petrobras and Banco do Brasil during Mr Cardoso's administration, and who sold off everything he could lay his hands on during his term as São Paulo's government, the man who "leads" by chicanery and intrigue, the man whose Secretary of Education and closest ally, Mr Paulo Renato, was the Cardoso Minister of Education who led the dismounting of the federal education system and the proliferation of pay-as-you-pass private "universities" which are now being closed one after the other on poor-quality grounds. Mrs Rousseff, on the other hand, is the day-to-day administrator of what is simply the most sucesssful and consequently the most popular government in Brazilian history.

A recent poll conducted by Sensus at the behest of the Brazilian National Industrial Confederation has shown that the role of the press in the voters' choice of candidates has dropped from more than 80% in 1998 to less than 10% in 2009. The press being the only place where Mr Serra is popular, these are about the same chances he has of being Brazil's next president.

This article would have been almost acceptable, had it not been for the fake flair of impartiality... The last two paragraphs, for instance, are outrageous to say the least... Again the Economist chooses to mislead instead of informing its readers... Why not give the numbers of the CNT/Sensus poll? Why not inform that in the most probable scenario, the one in which Ciro Gomes does not run for the presidency, Serra would actually win the elections without the need for a runner up against Dilma or Marina Silva...

Also, it is ridiculous to say that Serra is similar to Dilma. There could never be two politicians that are more apart from each other in terms of ideology and experience. She was never elected for anything, while Serra has political career spanning decades. Serra has proven to be an able admistrator, while Dilma has shown that she is unable to get the PAC going...

So, instead of advising Serra to break Brazilian law by starting his presidential campaign before it is constitutionally legal, the Economist would do best to stick to real journalism. In other words, stop trying to spread the Worker's Party Gospel! Why not report, for example, on the blatant illegal campaigning in which Lula and Dilma are engaged right now and on the absurd silence regarding this issue by the Brazilian Electoral Court and other bodies of the Brazilian Justiciary?

Tomas, I forgot to ask: by the way, is you real name Franklin Martins?

I don't think Serra is the best president that Brazil can have, but considering all the options available at the moment, he is the most qualified.
Serra is, by far, more competent, more knowledgeable and less corrupt (hard to say that there is an honest politician in Brazil) than his predecessor LULA.
Labor party managed to remain in power for 2 consecutive terms relying on populist speeches from Lula, who clearly targeted low income voters.
Now, with Dilma running for presidential elections, I can't see the story repeating again. Although hard to predict yet, my opinion is that Serra will win the elections with ease.

Dear José de Oliveira,

Firstly, I don't need compliments on my English from a fellow Brazilian, thank you. Let's leave that for native English speakers.

Secondly, you could tell me and everybody else what is it that is not true in what I said, instead of just calling me names. It's true that your tiny minority can't do much else but calling names, but you could at least show a little effort. For example, you could check items in the list below:

__ Mr Serra was not a proeminent member of Mr Cardoso's administration
__ Mr Serra did not support he privatisation of Petrobras and Banco do Brasil
__ The education in the state he and his party have been governing for the past 14 years is not fourth from the bottom
__ His Secretary of Education is not the Cardoso minister who forbid hiring new teachers in federal universities, forced the existing teachers to work in managerial tasks, doubled the number of students per teacher, did not raise teachers's wages for 8 years, and allowed the creation of over 1,300 private hole-in-the-wall "university" rackets?
__ Alstom has not been cited by the Swiss police among others for bribing São Paulo state officers in the recent past?
__ Mr Serra is not one of the leaders of the "opposition" to Lula
__ Mr Serra doesn't take extreme care to hide this from his would-be voters
__ Mr Serra does not pay miser wages to teachers and policemen and medical staff; the police who demonstrated in front of São Paulo government seat several times were all disguised Lula supporters and the organised crime does not dictate the rules in the state's prisons and in the cities' slums
__ Mr Serra does not feed prefabricated "scandals" to his cronies in the press.

Pick you choice. You may choose more than one answer.

Thirdly, thank you for you compliment on the excellence of my points by assigning them to Franklin Martins, but no, sorry, I'm Tomás Rosa Bueno. Google my full name and you'll see who I am.

Finally, I very much doubt I or anybody else will see the likes of you after October, when you'll all crawl back to the humid shade under your favorite stone.

I'm sorry, Tomas, but ENEM is not a credible font to measure improvements in education, nor to build a ranking.
I, as a 18 years old student in São paulo who actually participated in ENEM for two years in a roll, can assure you what I'm talking.
I can even give you a tip of what students thought about the exam and governament actuation on this matter: "Never in the history of this country, a governament made so much mistakes in such a short period of time".
And as a student I must say that I've learned more about my teachers beliefs and all that socialist proselytism than mathematics, the subject they should be really teaching. Improvements came only when Serra had the courage to discipline teachers and face their union's (which, I must say, had no commitment with education).
As a student I couldn't let your argument just go on.
And please, sorry for my harsh english.

I agree with you. Serra has undeniably an impressive curriculum, which includes parliamentary experience, as a member of the federal Chamber of Deputies and the federal Senate. As you mentioned, he has an excellent academic background, which is rare among Brazilian politicians. Since the middle-class places a high value on academic credentials, in Brazil and elsewhere, this may become one of the positive factors in his campaign. Party fatigue, however, more than anything else, may help Serra win the elections.

As per the article: "He has suffered much criticism of late, as heavy rains have caused flash floods, landslides and collapsing roads, resulting in around 70 deaths. Despite the accusations of failing to improve the state’s flood defences...". This is the biggest political asset of Lula's followers against Serra. The papers in Brazil blame Serra and Kassab (Sao Paulo mayor, also an oppositor to Lula) for the floods, but they also blame the rain for the floods in the adjacents municipalities administrated by mayors allied to Lula. Two different mesures for the same weight..

Serra is not campaigning because it is against the law. Lula and Ms USSRossef are campaigning against the law and nobody seems to care about that.

To add some curious data from last CNT/Sensus poll: in the interview is was given higher weight to sites where the transfer programs are more expressive, example: in Natal (Rio Grande do Norte) where 508k people lives and PT (Lula's party lost lasst election for mayor) was interviewd 4 electors while in Sitio Novo (Rio Grande do Norte as well) where the transfer program benefits 803 citzens from a total of 4,000 electors was interviewd 13 people.

Serra lost in 2002 and will loose again.
Good president, but not for Brazil in 2010.
Anyone who wishes to be the president has to bribe, or at least wave with a not very ethical truce, the PMDB and the similar parties.
Lula and Dilma will do that and much worse with a big smile in their faces.
Sorry, but this is the true.
If a highway patrol stops you in Rio de Janeiro you have two options: pay or stay. The policeman will not ask for money, will not follow the law but he will, for sure, delay your trip as long as he wants.
So, you know it is wrong, but there is not another way. Serra prefers to stay.
Will loose again.
He claims for fair play while dealing with bandits and terrorists, literally. He has the patience of the fools.

I don't mean to be disrespectful, but...

"The front-runner in Brazil’s coming presidential contest has done a decent job running its biggest state."

This is a lie. 57% of the inhabitants of São Paulo said recently in a poll they would leave to another place if they had the chance. While in Brazil about 25% of the students attend Spanish classes, the figure is of only 0.6% in the state governed by Serra. Public education system has failed in São Paulo (the state is ranked 10th amongst 27 UFs) and this reflects everywhee, including in the pathetic growing rates of São Paulo economy. Public universities have lost their autonomy and São Paulo is going through a huge crisis in scientific production - while the opposite happens everywhere else in Brazil. All the crime rates are rising, while inequality is getting bigger and the number o poors in São Paulo increases year after year - while the opposite happens everywhere else in Brazil.

Serra means retrocess to Brazil. He's only popular with Brazilian elites - thanks to a paternalist behaviour - and is the "chosen one" by Brazilian conservative media. For the poors of Brazil, he only represents a dangerous threat of retrocess and increasing of poverty, in my opinion.

If "The Economist" thinks Serra is such a good manager, please, take him to your team. In Brazil, no one can stand his lack of competence and cheap populism anymore.

One thing is certain: as a young re-democratizing nation, Brazil would hugely benefit from a change in the party in government - at both the federal and state level.

PT might have done a decent job while in the presidency, surprisingly decent. But too long a time in office will breed more complacency towards corruption and inefficiency.

Oddly enough, the rationale applies to Serra's party in the state of Sao Paulo. They have done good, but its high time for a change in the governorship.

Bottom line, let us hope that democracy will uproot power perpetuation notwithstanding the populist undertakings aimed at setting up the office for chosen successors. Latin America could do without another Venezuela style government.

Dear generated pen name:

the logistic problems in test distribution did not affect the tests themselves, as anyone who hasn't gone to school in São Paulo in the past 14 years could know. Until otherwise decided, the ENEM is the official education-quality assessment tool in Brazil, accepted as such even by Mr Serra.

And I must thank you for confirming one of my points. "Face the unions" means "paying miser wages".

EBittencourt

I have already taken time to drive in São Paulo highways. And they have nothing to do with the highways in "central countries". The highways in "central countries" are not surrounded by huge slums like the highways in São Paulo. Neither they are so expensive like ours.

You mentioned that São Paulo has major universities and research institutes. Yes, it does. USP, UNICAMP, UNESP, Federal de São Carlos, ITA, which produce close to 60% of the patents deposited in INPI, as you mentioned, were all created BEFORE PSDB and José Serra government in São Paulo, so I don't get your argument. All Serra has done is taking autonomy away from these universities and since than São Paulo is facing a huge crisis in scientific production. Not to mention our basic public education which stands nowadays side by side with the poorest states in Brazil. Shameful.

The GNP of São Paulo USED TO BE around 40%, before Serra's party 16 years in power. Now, it is around 32%, since São Paulo economy grows 5 times less than Brazil.

Now, when you say "By far, the best hospitals in Brazil are in São Paulo" I start doubting you really know São Paulo. People are dying waiting to receive medical care in São Paulo hospitals. Yes, São Paulo has excellent PRIVATE hospitals. But 85% of the people doesn't have money to pay for them. These ones have to wait 6 months in line to see a doctor.

As for the corruption in the federal government, I see no significant difference from the previous administration or even from Serra's government. Look for "Alstom scandal" to see what I'm talking about.

Yes, I've been seeing people talking about "giant economic crisis" to come... and I've seen that, again, it's starting in developed countries, so I won't blame Lula or Serra for that. I'm tired of hearing the same usual pessimistics with the same terrorist talk about Brazilian crisis and bla bla bla. The same speculators of always with the same obscure reasons of always. Not interested. When there's something more than rumors and Brazilian politicans from Serra's party recommending foreing investors not to go to Brazil I'll start believing. Right now, Brazil has left the crisis in better shape than 99% of the world. Calling that a bad result is insanity.

I didn't watch the film. I just read real news, not Veja magazine. That's why I vote for Dilma.

A reader has said that criticism towards Serra is "simply part of the brainwashing Lula's supporters (the "petralhas") [speech] are trying to submit the whole country to."

Actually, ALL the entire Brazilian mainstream press do nothing but attack Lula by any means possible (or not) and try to portray Serra as a perfect politican - when in fact, believe me, he's very, very, very, very far from the most remote meaning of the word "perfect". If they don't have any facts to make critics upon, they fastly create a "crisis" (they've been trying to create artificial crisis day after day lately). And even so, Lula remains the most popular politician in Brazil EVER. And a large part of that success is due to Mrs. Dilma Rousseff wonderful job in his government.

The only "brainwashing" we have in Brazil is called mainstream media and TV. And these are not on Lula's side. No one is "trying to submit" Brazilians to anything. Brazilians elected Lula. TWICE. And he keeps 85% of approval so far. Saying that this is due to brainwashing makes no sense at all. Brazilians support Lula's government because it was, in fact, the best one we've got so far.

José Serra, on the other hand... has done nothing but breaking São Paulo economy apart. The writer of the article knows very little of what's going on in São Paulo. There's nothing "healthy" about the state finances. On contrary: the public debt of São Paulo state has increased more than 300% on the last 4 years - while huge cuts have been made in public education and health systems budgets.

Decent job running São Paulo? His job in only decent on the big media groups of Brazil that don´t show anything, absolutely anything wrong that happens in São Paulo – the chaos caused by floods (only Saint Peter is blamed for everything), the increase in criminality, corruption and so on… Those who controls the media want so desperately to elect him that they transformed São Paulo in the most perfect state of Brazil, but those who live here knows better.

JoseOliveira wrote:
Feb 4th 2010 8:23 GMT

Dear Tomas Rosa Bueno,

Firstly, I shall congratulate you. Your English is very fluent.

I totally agree with it!

Let me remind you of a few things that seems to me you've already forgot.

In 1998 a multi-billion dollar financial scam was on the making. The latest International Monetary Fund-sponsored operation was a "re-run" of previous year's speculative raids on South-East Asia which led to the confiscation of more than $100 billion of hard currency reserves. On September 11, amidst turmoil on the Sao Paulo stock exchange, some $1.7 billion had quietly left the country. In October, the pace of capital flight (funnelled through the forex market) was running at $400 million a day. The vaults of the Central Bank of Brazil were being ransacked by "institutional speculators" with the tacit collusion of the Government of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso. The Brazilian authorities stood idle: on instructions from their Wall Street masters, no exchange controls were instituted to mitigate the outflow.
According to J. P. Morgan in Sao Paulo, the cost of the interest rate hike to the country (in terms of added debt-servicing obligations) was a staggering $5 billion a month. (Financial Times, September 18, 1998). It was a massive sell-out: rather than curbing the flight of capital, the structure of high interest rates had contributed to heightening the debt burden. In addition to this was the devastating impact of the credit squeeze on domestic producers. The country is facing imminent bankruptcy; the state apparatus is under the control of external creditors. Moreover, Brazil's internal debt had almost doubled in less than six months, increasing from $145 billion in January 1998 to $254 billion in July.
From July to November 1998 $30 billion has been taken out of Brazil.
Fernando Henrique Cardoso worked close with the IMF in consultation with the world's largest commercial banks and brokerage houses. The central bank was to uphold the real by selling dollars in the forex market in massive quantities. In other words, central bank reserves were looted. The reserves were privatized.
Under the presidency of Cardoso, the creditors were control of the state bureaucracy, of its politicians. The state was bankrupt and its assets were impounded under the privatization programme.
The "economic therapy" required to restore "the faith and trust" of foreign investors resulted in further bank failures and mass unemployment.
Large sectors of Brazil's population were driven into abysmal poverty. Entire regions of the country were pushed into recession.
The IMF sponsored financial scam (implemented in Russia and South-East Asia) was inflicted to Brazil.
FHC helped immensely Washington's hiden agenda to take over the country.

Come on, we all know that a politician who has more than 20 years of public life will have successes and failures, just like Serra and Dilma. It is up to the voters to decide who has the best curriculum and who, if any, has the best capacity to govern the country.

We also know that elections are rarely about policies, but about personalities. That is why Dilma highlights her connections with Minas and Serra highlights his with Nordeste. Who (directed to electors not to the members of the party machine) can make a manifesto, and by that I mean with 50 or more pages, talking about what each of those candidates will do? Showing what the real and big differences between them? Very few, because politicians, like Peter Watt said of G Brown, make it up as they go along.

Both Serra and Dilma have boring personalities, are uncharismatic and there’s also talk that they’re arrogant. Not much of a surprise there, although Serra comes across better in television, partly because he doesn’t call reporters “my daughter”.

Even so, Serra has a tougher job than Dilma, because the government machine is against him and because Lula has a high approval. Another factor that may not help Serra is that his campaign will be based (at the same time) on the two only possible slogans in politics : “change”(designed for the oppostion) and “continuity” (designed for governments), but Brazilians don’t seem to be yearning for change, and Dilma can hold the continuity card in a better way than Serra. One thing we can be sure, no matter who wins, PMDB will govern….

Dear EBittencourt

You just forgot to mention that Serra does exactly the same thing, but having the mainstream press on his side, he doesn't have to face criticism from his actions.

José Serra spends more money in (self)publicity than in housing or sewage system. Serra has been doing nothing but campaining in the last 3 years in office. He's going to spend R$ 330 MILLIONS in publicity this year - ten times the amount he intends to spend with housing and the double of what he will spend with infrastructure.

José Serra is just that. A personage created by publicity and media. And Brazilians are starting to perceive that. This is the reason why he's falling so fast in polls and was already surpassed by Dilma in Northeast and even developed states, such as Rio de Janeiro.

BTW, I recommend all Brazilians to watch a commercial done by São Paulo Police Officers about the lack of consideration from Serra towards police agents. São Paulo cops, and also teachers, receive the LOWEST wages in Brazil - even though São Paulo is the richest state.

Of course, José Serra has censored the commercial and it could not go to TV. But it's avaiable on Youtube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=upZUiZr9qa8

There you can read: "The Police wants RESPECT to continue working for São Paulo". They are right. It's difficult to work for São Paulo when the governor does not care for its own employees...