FHC interview in The Economist

For those that learn about Brazil reading books from the US or the UK (say, The Forgotten Continent by The Economist's Michael Reid, or the duo of books from 2010, The New Brazil and Brazil on the Rise, reviewed elsewhere in this blog), former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso typically comes off quite well. Before entering the presidency, he was the man that solved Brazil's inflation problems. While in office, he made some reforms that have turned out well by some measures, like the privatization of state-run companies has turned tax dollar-draining duds into global powerhouses (including Vale and Embraer). He also started several social programs (that have since been rebranded by his competitors) and got the ball rolling to try to improve Brazil's dismal public education. He spent years abroad after becoming a persona non grata for opposing the dictatorship, and is an accomplished academic with a PhD in sociology.

He had some faults too - there was undoubtedly some level of corruption in his privatizations, and his second term in office was unsuccessful (though perhaps this can be attributed to a lack of sufficient corruption - he didn't buy off congress to support his agenda).

In Brazil itself, evaluations of the former president are far from universally positive. In Bahia, a stronghold of his opponents in the Workers Party, he is detested by a large part of the population, often irrationally so; my wife refuses to use academic books with his name on them, even if they'd be useful for a college paper. As far as I can tell, the chasm between the international view of FCH comes down to two important points that separate Brazil from the US and UK - identity politics as practiced in Brazil, and a culture of training people to use the word "neoliberal" a lot, and with great disdain, about people that try to reform Brazil's bloated government.

In the case of identity politics, Brazilians consider FHC to be arrogant and out of touch with common people. He may well have a fantastic ego, and his professorial demeanor can be offputting to some. Like any politician that wants to survive, he spins things to be favorable to him, and wants to convince the world that his contribution was important. On the other hand, he is probably just as often the victim of spin against him. He once argued that a serious problem in education was the fact that teachers are the lowest-level professionals - that is, that teachers are typically people that can't get a better job. He's completely right, but the statement was turned into an attack on teachers by his opponents, who spun the statement to mean that teachers are a bunch of lazy bums. To this day, he is dispised by a large contingent of Brazilian teachers (explaining the misunderstanding of his statement does nothing to alleviate the hatred).

Personally, I don't care very much for identity politics. As for the charge that FHC gave the country away to foreigners, Brazil is profiting still from changes he and others brought about (but most people are attributing economic growth to Lula instead). So, though I try to maintain a healthy skepticism, and by default consider any Brazilian politician corrupt, I tend to more or less see FHC as the international press does.

Take a look at the current interview with him in the Economist - it's mostly politics with only a bit of information about Brazil's economic development (regarding economic development, the most interesting part is perhaps some quick mentions of the rising middle class in Brazil and how it is more market-oriented and less dependent on government, which might herald changes further down the road). But he comes off as a pretty reasonable guy. He takes credit for Brazil's recent success (such as when he mentions that everyone was afraid of Lula undoing all the progress "he" had made), but he is also anxious for new leaders to step in. He admits to mistakes. He might criticize Lula and other opponents, but he does so reservedly and rationally.

Contrast this with Lula's interview in the New Yorker some months ago (which I summarized in another entry), in which Lula spends the entire time insisting that black is white - his bungles are actually the pride of others, inventions of others never existed, everything before him was doomed to failure.

You probably shouldn't draw too many conclusions about real presidential performance based on their interviews, but then again, if so many people love Lula and hate FHC becase of their personality differences, why can't you make an equally superficial judgement?