Two Brazils == Two Presidents?
Today we got to the end of this presidential run. As expected, Luiz Inácio "Lula" da Silva won the election by a large margin. But it is foolish to think that he was, indeed, re-elected through a democratic process.
While Lula got a crushing amount of ballots in the North and North-East regions, in South and South-East states (Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná and São Paulo), Geraldo Alkmin won the election.
What we see here is a clear division of the country. The South and South-East states are the top states economically, and have the greatest interest in the country's economy and welfare. But they didn't get to elect the president they needed.
On the other hand, North and North-East states, which are the least educated, least politically informed and on the receiving end of the government's misleading helping actions (we may as well call them bribe), get to elect a president that is deeply involved in corruption and murder plots.
How can we call it a democratic exercise, if the majority of the people are making uninformed choices? If they don't have the knowledge or the interest to understand politics, economy and the global conjuncture, should they be allowed to vote at all?
Maybe the country really needs to be split up. Or maybe we have to re-define who is allowed to vote. Or even easier than that, I believe that if we simply remove the obligation to vote (that's right, we are required by LAW to vote... democracy, you know?!), this uneducated parcel of the population would refrain from hindering what should be a responsible act.
For the Portuguese speaking among you, please listen to this wonderful commentary from Carlos Heitor Cony and Arthur Xexéo (WMA!) about this division.
While Lula got a crushing amount of ballots in the North and North-East regions, in South and South-East states (Rio Grande do Sul, Santa Catarina, Paraná and São Paulo), Geraldo Alkmin won the election.
What we see here is a clear division of the country. The South and South-East states are the top states economically, and have the greatest interest in the country's economy and welfare. But they didn't get to elect the president they needed.
On the other hand, North and North-East states, which are the least educated, least politically informed and on the receiving end of the government's misleading helping actions (we may as well call them bribe), get to elect a president that is deeply involved in corruption and murder plots.
How can we call it a democratic exercise, if the majority of the people are making uninformed choices? If they don't have the knowledge or the interest to understand politics, economy and the global conjuncture, should they be allowed to vote at all?
Maybe the country really needs to be split up. Or maybe we have to re-define who is allowed to vote. Or even easier than that, I believe that if we simply remove the obligation to vote (that's right, we are required by LAW to vote... democracy, you know?!), this uneducated parcel of the population would refrain from hindering what should be a responsible act.
For the Portuguese speaking among you, please listen to this wonderful commentary from Carlos Heitor Cony and Arthur Xexéo (WMA!) about this division.
Labels: Alckmin, Democracy, Lula, Presidential Election
posted by Real-Time Clock at 10/30/2006 09:26:00 AM
4 Comments:
What kind of democracy are you talking about, if only few selected people can vote (only the "educated" people like you mention)?
Seem that you really does not know anything about democracy otherwise you should accept the result of the election is a reflect of what the country want and it is what the greatest part of the country (including people from the south-east and south regions).
We will have always different point of views in a democracy and it is a good characteristic of the democracy, but when a different point of view is with the power, we have to supervise the management/conduction of the country and always request the best actions of those who are in the government.
I am Braziliam and I am not shamed with the result of the elections, I think that if Geraldo Alckmin were the best choice for use why he could not win with his “best” proposals to the country?
Because only least educated people vote? Your argument that the poor/least educated people elect Lula is not completely right.
In other situations the same poor people that you mention choose Fernando Henrique Cardoso (from same group which Alckmin comes).
Please if you wish to manifest you opinion do that, we are in a democracy, right? But please do that based in true facts and not only in prejudices and arguments that are not constructive.
I am Braziliam and I am not shamed with the result of the elections, I think that if Geraldo Alckmin were the best choice for use why he could not win with his “best” proposals to the country?
Your argument is based on the assumption that every vote is a critical, well-thought, informed choice.
It's simply NOT TRUE.
It's useless to have good proposals if the majority of the people don't have access to it and, more importantly, can't understand it.
I find it very amusing that some people think that our election is a democratic act. It is not.
Democracy only exists when the choice is carefully analysed and based on all the data available. That means that if you can't understand politics, you don't have what it takes to be part of a democratic election. Therefore, uninformed people should not be allowed to vote.
Peace,
Markus.
Yes, I agree with you that part of the people have not information enough about all the facts related to the government, It is indeed a problem, but unfortunately it is not from today, and is a problem not only here in Brasil but also in other countries with democratic government. It makes part of the democracy. Each one choose her/his candidades according with their interests, or am I wrong? People who needs help from the government and receive helps will continue voting to whom that help them (including employee and employers).
Maybe the previously governments should had given help to the people with least money and this situation could be different, but it did not happen.
Your proposal of the obligation to vote could be considered, I agree with that, but every citizen must have his/her right to vote nowadays, it is the core of our democracy, and try to suggest to remove the right of the vote from those who are “least” educated is not a democratic action I think. Imagine a situation where in the future we removing the right of vote from those who are disabled because they are no “capable” to vote…. This type of thinking is the first step to remove the rights from the people and change from democracy to an authoritarian government… but it is another subject…..
So, this is my point of view, you can agree or not, it is up to you. I think analyzing the different points of view and the arguments of each sides, is healthy and one of the first steps to construct a better country.
Jesus... Biased much?
Post a Comment
<< Home