The election in Brazil

Her challenger, Aecio Neves of the Social Democratic Party made a strong showing with 48.5 percent in the runoff, making Rousseff’s victory one with the slimmest margin in the history of elections in Brazil.In 2010, when she made history as the first woman president of Brazil, Rousseff, a former chief of staff to Luiz Inacio […]

Her challenger, Aecio Neves of the Social Democratic Party made a strong showing with 48.5 percent in the runoff, making Rousseff’s victory one with the slimmest margin in the history of elections in Brazil.
In 2010, when she made history as the first woman president of Brazil, Rousseff, a former chief of staff to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, her predecessor and main patron, faced a similar runoff in which she scored a little above 56 percent of the vote ahead of her then rival former Sao Paolo governor Jose Serra. The outcome of last month’s elections and Rousseff’s victory surprised many, even though incumbents in Latin America hardly lose re-election. The country recorded an appreciable growth rate of 7.5 percent in her first year which, along with many other positive indicators, give financial power to civil servants.
But the economy nose-dived as the civil service became bloated.
This year, the economy suffered and corruption – particularly in the oil sector -became rife, and many Brazilians, especially supporters of the pro-business Nevez, complained of high corporate taxes.
The opposition also said that the big spending on World Cup, which was nearly marred by protests, neither provided sufficient infrastructure nor achieved the desired result after Brazil, known as a world leader in football, made a disastrous outing in the global event.
Her government came under strong criticisms from investors who questioned interventions – such as enforcing price controls on fuel distributed by the state-owned Petrobras and Neves said economic progress began to stall since she first took office.
Popular sentiment is that Rousseff’s position could have been difficult to sustain but for the death of Eduardo Campos of the Socialist party, who was killed in a plane crash in August.
Leaders of the Workers’ Party, in pre-election campaign, channelled their energy to convincing voters across the poor north and northeast where their social programmes transformed the lives of many. Lula da Silva, who was credited with introducing far-reaching pro-poor income redistribution policies before leaving office, consistently urged the voters not to vote for parties that have no regard for the disadvantaged, appeals that helped Rousseff to turn the tide in the elections generally seen as transparent.  Her reputation as a former fugitive guerrilla fighter who was tortured by the country’s former military rulers still impresses many of her compatriots.
Mr Neves, an economist and a member of the Brazilian Senate, wasted no time in conceding defeat and calling Rousseff to offer her his congratulations.
In her victory speech, Mrs Rousseff acknowledged the need for unity, consensus and dialogue, recognising the slim margin between her and Neves, which many say may mean some legitimacy crisis of sorts. Observers have also advised the president to take Mr Nevez economic ideas on board.
The Brazil experience should have some resonance for Nigeria and other developing countries, where democracy is still taking firm roots where, like in Burkina Faso last week, transition could be fragile. One of the lessons is the ability of the electoral body to organise and deliver credible elections that are generally accepted and respected. Moreover the politicians, for their part, should learn to play according to the rules, base their campaign on issues rather than sentiments and respect the wishes of the electorate who should be mobilised to vote for competent leadership at all levels. The thrill of victory should not be licence to trample on opponent after assuming office.