CELEBRATING LULA, REMEMBERING CHAVEZ

Because of such events, we frequently see, at one extreme, Bill Clinton (a value-adder) and, on the other, such characters as a certain Kim Kardashian (a value-reducer). But one always hoped we would one day attract really serious leaders who have made great difference in their countries. We didn’t have to wait long; perhaps the […]

Because of such events, we frequently see, at one extreme, Bill Clinton (a value-adder) and, on the other, such characters as a certain Kim Kardashian (a value-reducer). But one always hoped we would one day attract really serious leaders who have made great difference in their countries. We didn’t have to wait long; perhaps the most effective leader this millennium (all thirteen years of it) – Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, immediate past president of Brazil was in Lagos this week at the Economist Nigeria Summit.
One other leader that could be compared to Lula, and who could have made (in fact, already made) similar impact on his people was Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, the late charismatic leader of the International New Left who left this earth a few days ago. We would have loved to have him come address us after his own retirement. Alas! (More on Chavez later).
But Lula, as he is popularly known at home, was a phenomenal success in the eight years he has been president 2002-2010. In fact, our own president Goodluck Jonathan, while welcoming Lula said, interalia, “I am specially honoured to warmly welcome His Excellency, President Lula da Silva, an icon of development, under whose astute leadership Brazil emerged a global economic power. His enormous wealth of experience and outstanding leadership qualities will undoubtedly enrich this discussion.” (Indeed).
Jonathan’s predecessor late Umar Musa Yar’adua had visited Brazil early on in his presidency, and had returned with a similar impression – one was that Lula had told him that the 108,000 megawatts of electricity Brazil was producing was grossly inadequate for the development ambitions of the country. As Nigeria was then struggling (still is) to sustain 4,000 megawatts, Mallam Umar ambitiously targeted 6,000 by the end of 2009. Alas! Those 4,000 have since become more or less minorwatts.
The Economist newspaper is good at conferences too. It themed this Nigeria Summit ENABLING AND IMPLEMENTING CHANGE saying, among others, that “Nigeria has a young and growing population, a wide range of natural resources and a government full of internationally renowned reformers – yet life for the average Nigerian is not improving.” (Thank you.) Interestingly, our president who only a few days earlier opened ALAMSGATE, noted in his welcome address that “…Corruption and issues of good governance are also being vigorously tackled on all fronts…” (Indeed!)
But back to Lula. The most celebrated aspect of his eight-year presidency was not the fact that he did not seek, or want, a third term (and if he had wanted he would have got, remember?), but the phenomenally-successful poverty-reduction programme he executed, Bolsa Familia, discussed on these pages several times in the past.
The Economist newspaper which brought Lula to Lagos, the flagship Western capitalist ideologue publication, said about Bolsa Familia in a 2008 story titled Happy Families – An Anti-Poverty Scheme Invented In Latin America Is Winning Converts Worldwide: “…Globalisation works for ideas too. Brazil’s Bolsa Família (Family Fund) anti-poverty scheme [is] the largest of its kind in the world…a refined version was recently implemented in New York City in an attempt to improve opportunities for children from poor families.”
The Economist continued: “Brazilian officials were in Cairo this week to help Egyptian officials set up a similar scheme. ‘Governments all over the world are looking at this programme,’ says Kathy Lindert of the World Bank’s office in Brasília, who is about to begin work on similar schemes for Eastern Europe…a quarter of Brazil’s population now receive the benefit. Look hard enough and it is also possible to find businesses spawned by this consumption boom among the poor…”
When the Economist returned to the topic of Bolsa Familia in 2010, it said: “Brazil has made huge strides in poverty reduction…According to [university research], the number of Brazilians with incomes below 800 reais ($440) a month has fallen more than 8% every year since 2003…The main reason for the improvement is the rise in bottom-level wages.”
Even that non-friend of the poor, the World Bank, had this to say in a story titled Bolsa Família – Changing the Lives of Millions in Brazil: “Can social policies go beyond assistance and become active tools of social and economic transformation? Brazil is showing us that they can. The Program…is cited as one of the key factors behind the positive social outcomes achieved by Brazil in recent years…The results show that it is possible to deal with poverty and income inequality in a sustained manner, integrating millions of people into the economic and social mainstream of the country, without giving up economic development.”
“One positive effect of the program,” says Wikipedia, “which is not immediately apparent is that it makes a significant impact on the ability of the poorest families to eat. In a survey of Bolsa Familia recipients, 82.4% reported eating better; additionally, it was reported to increase the incomes of the poorer families by about 25%.
(That is Brazil. In Nigeria, much earlier in this Administration, a Committee on Social Security was set up chaired by former Head of State retired General Yakubu Gowon. The committee had since submitted its report; has anyone heard anything of it after? Lula may help us find out).
One other person that brought his people out of misery was the late Chavez. His fourteen years as president (yes, he was on his third term going on a fourth) made a lot of difference. Much has been written on his own run-away success, though his style was more militant than Lula’s. A student reader of this column, Najeeb Ilyas Wali, reading Chemistry at FUT Minna, and who would ‘rather be a philosopher’, contributed this on Hugo:
The death of Hugo Chavez has predictably generated numerous comments and condolences from leftists, progressives and socially responsible humans around the world. Curiously, even some Republicans in the United States have been bold enough to praise the departed president of Venezuela for his efforts to help the poor and downtrodden, not just in his own country, but in other nations.
Chavez’s death is a loss for more than just one particular Latin American country. His passing deprives all those struggling to resist America and its receding power. His death means a loud and proud “Third Worlder” who matched his talk with action against imperialism is gone. The good news is that his idealism and iconic status will serve to inspire and produce yet even more Hugos that would be willing to take on the increasingly desperate Empire.
Someday, future historians will place an asterisk by Hugo’s name, giving him his due credit on the role he played in bringing that glorious day to pass. It is worthy of note that, despite ruling Venezuela with massive oil reserves, Chavez didn’t own an oil block.
And then back to the Economist. In October, they are holding another Summit in Ghana. Serious country. Serious people. They don’t pardon thieves; they shoot them.