How important is continuity in governments?
Brazil's President Lula da Silva is heralded globally for a successful economy
and for funding the poor. Brazilian law prevented him from seeking a third term;
so, he handpicked a successor—Dilma Rousseff, his chief of staff.
Rousseff had never held elected office, spending her career as a political
advisor, and in the 1980s she was a socialist and underwent torture by the military
dictatorship.
On the campaign trail, Rousseff learned a lot about electioneering, and analysts
noted better speeches as well as an image makeover. The presidential election
required a runoff—but in the end, Rousseff won.
Many credit Lula with her victory. In the 1980s and 90s, Brazil survived a
string of weak presidencies, which wreaked havoc with the nation's economy and
caused uncontrollable inflation. This could explain why voters chose a candidate
who is closely aligned with Lula, a known and successful figure.
However, Rousseff's election begs a question: How far should predecessors go
in selecting and managing future administrations? In Russia, President Dmitry
Medvedev is labeled by some as a puppet for predecessor Vladmir Putin.
Gender is another factor. Other female presidents in Latin America had ties
to popular male predecessors and little experience in office, for instance,
in Argentina, Cristina Kirchner.
The Economist wondered whether Rousseff is "Lula in Lipstick." If
Rousseff is not a puppet for Lula, then her limited public exposure makes it
hard to predict whether she will be a good leader.
What do you think? Should one popular administration dictate the next? Is hand
picking a successor acceptable in order to win an election or to direct a government?
By Julia Taylor Kennedy
Photo Credits in order of Appearance: AbdallahE.T.StudhalterValter Campanato/ABrAround the RingsAloizio Mercadante OlivaRede Brasil AtualAloizio Mercadante OlivaAloizio Mercadante OlivaJosé Cruz/ABrIsaac RiberoAloizio Mercadante Olivawww.kremlin.rufotospresidencia5Bruno BuccalonRede Brasil Atual
