O ex-presidente Fernando Henrique Cardoso admitiu em entrevista ao jornal britânico Financial Times
que a candidata do PT à Presidência da República, Dilma Rousseff,
deverá sair vitoriosa das eleições marcadas para o próximo dia 3 de
outubro. Mas alertou que essa vitória representará um desenvolvimento
mais lento do País. "Isso vai nos impedir de nos desenvolvermos mais
rapidamente. Mas não vai levar o Brasil para trás. A sociedade é muito
forte para isso."
O ex-presidente não escondeu sua frustração ao falar sobre as
próximas eleições, afirmando que a oposição ajudou a tornar o presidente
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva um mito. "A oposição entendeu errado. Nós
permitimos a mitificação de Lula. Mas Lula não é revolucionário. Ele
surgiu da classe trabalhadora e se comporta como se fizesse parte da
velha elite conservadora", declarou FHC.
Segundo o ex-presidente, Lula anestesiou o Brasil. "Nós esquecemos
que o País precisa continuar avançando. O que eu consegui fazer levou o
País para a frente. Mas então ele parou", ressaltou FHC.
"Nós precisamos de uma nova onda de reformas", acrescentou o
ex-presidente. "Como nós teremos um aumento de produtividade para
competir? Isso significa reforma fiscal, impostos menores e investimento
em capital humano e infraestrutura."
FHC afirmou ainda que a grande questão que deveria ser debatida
atualmente é a da "qualidade". "Nós gastamos toda a nossa vida nos
preocupando sobre quantidade. Se o PIB cresce ou não. Agora a questão é
qualidade. Que tipo de educação é essa? A principal razão para as
crianças não irem à escola não é mais econômica. É porque elas perderam o
interesse. A qualidade do ensino é péssima", acrescentou o
ex-presidente.
Indagado sobre como Lula será lembrado na história, FHC respondeu:
"Acho que ele será lembrado pelo crescimento e continuidade, e por ter
dado mais ênfase nos gastos sociais". Sobre sua própria importância para
a política brasileira, o ex-presidente disse que "eu fiz as reformas.
Lula surfou na onda".
Fonte: Clarissa Mangueira - Agência Estado
Leia a entrevista:
Lunch with the FT: Fernando Henrique Cardoso
By Jonathan Wheatley
It is also the preferred
local of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, the former Marxist intellectual
colloquially known as FHC, who went on to slay hyperinflation and then
twice became president of Brazil, from 1995 to 2002. Few people can
claim to have been a philosopher king, let alone to have put the “B” in
Bric – the now commonplace acronym,
coined in 2001 by Goldman Sachs’ chief economist, that groups Brazil,
Russia, India and China. And, although both the world and Brazil have
fallen in love with FHC’s successor, President Luiz Inácio Lula da
Silva, Cardoso is the man widely credited, at least abroad, with laying
the foundations for a boom that has caught many off guard both by its
speed and where it has come from.
I
am a quarter of an hour early for lunch: São Paulo’s chaotic traffic is
famously unpredictable. It is hard mentally to grasp a city of this
size – the second biggest in the world, by some counts, with a greater
urban population of about 20m. It is even harder to grasp the vastness
of Brazil and the surrounding continent. I remembered a previous time
I’d met Cardoso, in this same restaurant, when he had told me how,
occasionally, he would exploit that vastness to get away from the
strictures and stresses of being president. He’d board a single-engine
water plane, be flown several hours over jangled treetops that looked
like broccoli, and land at a remote fishing spot in an upper tributary
of the Amazon. There he would wile away a couple of days in swimming
shorts, meditatively gazing at the water with just a rod, his wife Ruth
and a single security man for company.
“Once, after our boat had
floated downstream for a few hours, I noticed the flash of binoculars in
the tree canopy. After a while a patrol boat came up to us, with a
Bolivian corporal in charge. I’d left Brazil without knowing it,”
Cardoso recalled. “I asked the corporal to patch a message through to
the president – I was good friends with the Bolivian president at the
time. I left a message saying that I was sorry to have invaded his
country, especially as I was only wearing underpants.”
Bang on
time, Cardoso appears in the archway leading to our dining room. In a
grey summer suit and blue shirt and tie, he is a slim man with
walnut-coloured skin (as he once said, his ancestry has “one foot in the
kitchen”, a reference to Brazilian slavery in the 19th century), and
looks far younger than he should at nearly 80. He smiles when he sees
me.
Although a senior senator for many years, Cardoso only
properly emerged on the national scene in 1992 as one of a new breed of
serious, well-intentioned Brazilian leaders. Back then, he became known
in Brazil as the man who introduced the “real plan” – a package of
economic reforms that stopped the country’s repeating cycle of boom and
bust, and chronically high inflation (over the prior decade, inflation
averaged 732 per cent a year). To the rest of the world, however,
Cardoso was better known as a sociologist and the author of Dependency and Development
(1969), a book that influenced a generation of Latin American thinkers
while advocating economic policies that turned out to be the opposite of
those that he successfully implemented while president.
I rise
to let Cardoso into the corner seat. He jokes with the waiters that this
way his back is covered but it also makes him visible and several times
during the meal he exchanges greetings with other diners. The former
president has been driven here today but often walks alone from his
apartment two streets away. He declines an offer of wine – one glass an
evening is his limit now, and he has given up his beloved whisky – and
we ask for sparkling water and the menus. For a few minutes we chat
about England and his time as a visiting professor at Clare College,
Cambridge in the mid-1970s. “They’ve given me an honorary PhD now,” he
says, with a self-deprecating smile, before adding: “I seem to get them
from everywhere these days.” (He has more than 20, including honorifics
from the universities of Oxford, London, Notre Dame, Rutgers, Jerusalem
and Moscow.)
We discuss why Brazil should have developed an image
in the eyes of the world as an exotic, lazy, tropical paradise,
associated with football, carnival, samba – and not much else. “Because
of slavery and because it was once a European monarchy in a tropical
country, it was much easier for outsiders to stick to preconceived ideas
than to do any analysis,” he says. But, by the 19th century, abetted by
waves of immigration, Brazil already had a strong export sector. And by
the 1940s, it had really taken off.
The big change came with the
second world war when, after flirting with Nazi Germany, Brazil joined
forces with the Allies. “Intellectually, Brazil had previously looked to
France; economically, to Great Britain,” says Cardoso. “Now the focus
moved to the United States.”
Along with the US investment Brazil
secured in return for its support – CSN, the Brazilian steelmaker built
with US money, is still going strong – the war delivered an automatic
defence from imported goods. Brazil became a closed economy, withdrawing
into itself in the same way that other big countries with huge land
masses such as Russia and China have done.
The country’s postwar
boom and industrialisation were led by powerful, centralised
governments, at first civilian and democratic, and then, from the
mid-1960s to mid-1980s, under military rule, until democracy was
re-established in 1988.
Under democracy, Cardoso says, fingering
the menu, it was no longer possible to ignore the demands of Brazil’s
growing population. “Under the military in the 1970s, growth was seven
per cent a year,” he says. “But education, health, infant mortality were
all getting worse. Under democracy, you have to meet those needs.”
By
now the waiters are getting impatient for our order. I’m disappointed
he doesn’t want a starter – one of Carlota’s specialities is a selection
of wonderful appetisers but it is for two people, so I pass. Cardoso
orders ravioli de gruyere, while I choose grilled lamb fillets with
ratatouille and goat’s cheese agnolotti.
But the transition to
democracy, he says, was chaotic, and culminated in a world-class bout of
hyperinflation in 1990, which “only strengthened outsiders’
preconceived ideas: as well as being exotic, Brazil was not a serious
country”.
Then Cardoso describes in a low voice, almost as an
aside, his emergence as a policymaker. After Itmar Franco became
president in 1992, “I [as finance minister] managed to secure inflation
and we began the reform of the state. From then, all the social
indicators began to improve, sometimes by more or less, and improvement
has accelerated under Lula, but the beginning was there ... Anyway, from
then on Brazil began to believe more in itself.”
This is the
Brazil that the world has come to know recently. It is a country of
soccer and samba and an immensely charming president (“I love this guy,”
as Barack Obama once said of Lula: “he’s the most popular politician on
earth”). It is also a country of giant companies such as JBS, the
world’s biggest meat producer, and Petrobras, which this week launched the globe’s largest ever share issue, worth almost $70bn, to exploit oil reserves that are larger even than those of Kuwait or Russia.
We pause for the arrival of our food. Cardoso says his ravioli is good. My lamb, though, is a bit disappointing.
So now that Brazil has found self-belief, what next, I ask.
“The
big thing is quality,” he begins. “We’ve spent all our lives worrying
about quantity – whether GDP grows or not. Now the question is quality.
What kind of education is this? The main reason children skip school is
no longer economic. It’s because they’ve lost interest. There’s no
point. The quality of teaching is awful.
“We need a new wave of
reforms,” Cardoso continues. “How will we increase productivity to
compete? That means fiscal reform, lower taxes, investment in human
capital and infrastructure.”
To many, this is known as “the Brazil
cost” – the challenge of getting things done in a country where the
state is so inefficient that Brazil ranks only 129th out of 183
countries in the World Bank’s annual “Doing Business” survey. I ask why
there appears to be no popular appeal for reforms that might change
this. “During my time there was popular appeal. There was a lot of
discussion,” he replies.
There was indeed. Flexibilisation was
the word in the late 1990s, when monopolies were broken, large sectors
of the economy privatised, the banking sector was recapitalised and
other reforms begun, such as of state pensions.
“The discussion
stopped,” FHC continues. “In a way, Lula has anaesthetised Brazil. We
have forgotten that Brazil needs to keep advancing. What I managed to do
moved the country forward. But then it stopped. Just stopped.”
Cardoso starts to talk about the election on October 3.
But when he mentions his own party, frustration enters his voice for
the first time. “The opposition got it wrong. We allowed the
mythification of Lula. But Lula is no revolutionary. He rose from the
working class and behaves as if he’s part of the old conservative
elite.”
I suggest we already know who will win the election, still three and a half weeks away at our lunch. “Yes,” he admits – Dilma Rousseff,
Lula’s anointed candidate from his Workers Party. (Lula himself is
outlawed from running for a third consecutive term, otherwise he would
walk it.)
What will that mean for Brazil? “It will prevent us from
developing more quickly. But it won’t take Brazil backwards. Society is
too strong for that.”
If so, I ask, why do Brazilians complain so
little, given rising crime, high violence, and persistent inequality?
Cardoso thinks this is changing.
He describes field trips as a
sociologist he once made into favelas and factories, when the poor would
step aside out of respect for the men in suits and ties. “Not today,”
he says. “People used to be afraid even to talk to you. Not now. There’s
a bad side, of course, in the violence, but there’s a good side too.
They’re thinking, what is this guy doing here, who doesn’t belong?
They’re not submissive any more.”
Our puddings arrive: guava
soufflé with cream-cheese sauce, a Carlota speciality and absolutely
delicious. Cardoso’s driver is hovering in the archway, worried he will
be late for his next appointment. But FHC is in no hurry and we order
coffee. He talks about his packed schedule – this is his third meeting
of the day and he has one an hour for the rest of the afternoon – but
when I suggest retirement he laughs and says that’s not possible, though
he would like to slow down a little.
He talks about his work with the Latin American Commission on Drugs and Democracy and with the Elders,
a group of statesmen and women assembled by Nelson Mandela to tackle
some of the world’s problems. “You can’t imagine the amount of work
involved,” he says. “Jimmy Carter [one of the group] has a physical and
mental stubbornness you wouldn’t believe.” Over coffee we chat about his
friendship of many years with Bill Clinton, and he tells me he is also
friends with Richard Branson (“very intelligent, and totally crazy.
Looks like a Viking and wants to go to the moon”) and Peter Gabriel
(“he’s the more intelligent – full of ideas and messages”). Bill Gates,
introduced to him by Clinton, FHC reports sadly, is “not a sympathetic
man. The others are, very. But he’s not.”
As we prepare to leave, I
ask Cardoso what he thinks history will make of Lula? “I think he will
be remembered for growth and continuity, and for putting more emphasis
on social spending. He’s a Lech Walesa who worked out.”
And of his own importance? “I did the reforms. Lula surfed the wave.”
Jonathan Wheatley is the FT’s Brazil correspondent
Excelente.Agora o que deve ser feito por todos os militantes do PSDB - Fazer palestras em escolas,exposições e demais eventos públicos. Apresentando a contribuição do partido na história politíca e econômica e social do país.Deveria ter sido feito essas palestras, discursos e debates - Desde, 2009!.Em todo o país, ou pelo menos nas maiores cidades do país!.
ResponderExcluir