The re-election has worked – 03/16/2024 – Samuel Pessôa

The Senate decided to put an end to re-election for Executive positions. The measure is bad. There is no sign that the re-election will be negative for the country.

It is argued that re-election encourages fiscal irresponsibility and populism of the incumbent to increase the chances of re-election. But it does not seem that, if re-election ceases to exist, the responsibility of mayors, governors or the president will increase.

I think exactly the opposite. I ask the reader: wouldn’t it have been much better for the country if Juscelino Kubitschek had had to deal with the cursed inheritance he bequeathed to Jânio Quadros? If there had been re-election at the time, JK would probably have been more cautious in his ambitious development program —which left the macroeconomic disorganization that resulted in the 1964 coup— and would have shouldered the political cost of having to clean up the mess he created. Certainly the historical assessment made of JK today would be different and would be much closer to the reality of his administration.

FHC had to correct, in his second term, the fiscal imbalance he created in his first term. He did it very well, but not well enough to maintain his political project. There was a political transition afterwards.

Dilma had to deal with the inheritance of the new economic matrix. Unfortunately, she lost any ability to lead the country and was impeached. But she tried and got some wins in 2015.

Temer has already received from Dilma 2 a tidier economy than Dilma 1 bequeathed to Dilma 2.

According to political science, reelection allows the vote, in addition to being prospective, based on the future, to be retrospective, that is, to reward the good ruler.

Empirical evidence suggests that reelection has worked. Researchers Claudio Ferraz and Frederico Finan, in an article in the prestigious American Economic Review, document that corruption is lower in mayors who can run for re-election.

Pedro Cavalcante, in a 2015 study, documented that mayors with better scores on the Firjan Fiscal Management Index have a greater chance of being re-elected.

Finally, João Eudes Bezerra Filho and Samuel Barros Godinho, in a work published in 2021, documented that poor management of school meals reduces the probability of being re-elected. All this evidence validates the hypothesis that there is retrospective voting in Brazil.

There is ill will towards re-election due to the way it was created in Brazil. The provision was valid for Executive members who had been elected under another rule. This is a clear violation of self-restraint in a democracy, or an unfair political game, even if legal. It tarnished FHC’s image. But the wrong way in which it was instituted should not distract us from the noun. Re-election has worked well, and there is nothing to indicate that we would be better off without it.

There is a problem linked to the Presidency of the Republic. It would be much better if we adopted the American rule: for the Presidency, after two terms, a person can no longer run.

If this rule had been valid in 2010, Lula would have been more careful in choosing his successor and would have appointed a professional politician to succeed him. The expectation of the possibility of returning in 2014 led to the appointment of a person with no political-electoral past.

For the Presidency of the Republic, due to the importance of the position and the strength it has in Brazil, it is not good for us to depend for decades on a charismatic leadership, no matter how talented and competent it may be. It is important that the rule encourages greater leadership renewal.

The information on the topic disseminated on a social network by USP political science professor Manoel Galdino was important for preparing the column. I would like to thank the teacher.

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.