It is Bolsonaro who must explain what he will do after destroying the roof, says Elena Landau

by

Economist and lawyer Elena Landau immersed herself in the campaign of presidential candidate Simone Tebet (MDB) as coordinator of the economic program. With the defeat in the first round, she waited for the signal from the emedebista to announce that she will now vote against Jair Bolsonaro (PL). She said that, without mentioning that this means voting for Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT).

Elena says that it was not a difficult political decision, as she had already been advocating the impeachment of the president. “Bolsonaro committed numerous crimes of responsibility,” she says. “That famous meeting, recorded in 2020, is enough. Just pay attention to what was said there. They talked about armed militia, about punishing mayors because of social isolation, about passing the herd in the environmental area. But people forget. “

Now, she says, they are forgetting that Bolsonaro and the Minister of Economy, Paulo Guedes, owe explanations about the conduct of fiscal policy.

“Everyone — marketers, journalists, entrepreneurs — asked Lula, Simone, Ciro Gomes, Soraya Thronicke what the fiscal anchor will be, how is the fiscal policy, how to make the fiscal adjustment? But nobody asks that of Guedes and Bolsonaro — and they were the ones who destroyed the roof.”

However, Elena admits that she is personally moved to have the PT vote. “I suffered a lot at the hands of PT militancy. I was unduly attacked during the privatization process.”

Mrs. always presented herself as a liberal economist. In the past, being liberal meant being concerned with public accounts. But in the campaign, her priorities, and those of other liberals, were the social and environmental agendas. Why this change? It is a fact that there is no liberalism without a market agenda, but liberals are not only concerned with the economy, they also defend democracy and social inclusion.

So much so that, back in the day, we had privatization, fiscal adjustment and state reform, but we also had investment in education, we had social policy, with gas vouchers and other initiatives.

That’s why you can’t call a government that advocates torture liberal. When Bolsonaro presents himself as a defender of a Carlos Brilhante Ustra, the word liberal does not fit him.

We haven’t changed. Society’s perception has changed in the face of what I call the soulless liberalism of Paulo Guedes’ administration.

Mrs. and Guedes had a public disagreement, in which he says he failed her, when he was your teacher, which you deny, for having completed his master’s degree. Where does this disagreement of yours come from? Since he was my professor in the master’s degree at PUC, in 1980, and he missed most of the classes. He was a bad teacher. Lied in profile. Confronted, he didn’t back down and let the lie go on in the networks. I coordinated a move away from the math course

AND qWhat is your assessment of Guedes’ liberal agenda in government? Is very bad. On the social agenda side, there is no opportunity to increase productivity and economic growth without an education agenda. Guedes didn’t even look at it.

We expected an improvement in Bolsa Família, but what did it do? [com o Auxílio Brasil] during the campaign it was an electoral proposal, which dismantled the social program. There is no focus, nobody knows if the children were vaccinated, if they attend school, or how many children the family has, what the use of this money is.

Now, on to the pure economic agenda.

We did not have inclusion in global production chains, trade liberalization or reduction of protectionism. Even if they wanted international integration, they wouldn’t be able to, because of the environmental issue. The little that could be done within Mercosur was a minimal reduction in the common external tariff.

They renewed the industrial exemption in a discretionary way, something that is not liberal at all. The tax reform was even ready, but Guedes got in the way with the CPMF issue. The country was ripe to discuss an Income Tax reform that could improve progressivity, but it didn’t come either.

Privatization was a fiasco. They only did the Eletrobras one, and it was very poorly done. It was handed over to Congress. The result destroyed planning in the electricity sector. Salim Mattar left the Privatization Department, created by Guedes, without delivering anything.

OK. We had some regulatory frameworks, such as the railways, and an economic freedom law with some good things, but very weak. The sanitation milestone came because it was well advanced in Tasso’s hands [Jereissati, senador que foi relator do texto] and the pension reform came out because of Rodrigo Maia [na época da votação, presidente da Câmara].

So, I ask, what liberal agenda was this?

To top it off, a year and a half ago, a populist agenda came along. If a Martian arrives in Brazil now, he will not know if the management is with Dilma or Bolsonaro, with Guido Mantega or Paulo Guedes. It’s all very similar.

Within all this, the best agenda was that of the BNDES. It operates as a service, investment bank, without subsidies.

But what about the fiscal results? Economists point to improvement, and Guedes himself talks about how he tidied up the house. It was all temporary. Will you hold server boost forever? Can you celebrate that there was an improvement in public accounts at the expense of rising inflation, which mainly affects the low-income population? Are you going to celebrate the income transfer that we are seeing? Are you going to keep lowering fuel prices by force? We who lived through the inflationary tax in the 1980s still remember how good it was [a inflação para as contas públicas]. She helped. But it’s a hand goal.

None of this is sustainable.

And what about Guedes’ legacy for next year? Where will the increase in Auxílio Brasil that they invented come from? The budget law is scandalous. Everyone knows that this Budget does not stand still and will be revised. There is a hole inside Bolsonaro’s own campaign promise.

This is an interesting thing. Everyone — market, journalist, businessman — asks Lula, Simone, Ciro Gomes, Soraya Thronicke what the fiscal anchor will be, what the fiscal policy is like, how to make the fiscal adjustment, but nobody asks that of Guedes and the Bolsonaro — and they were the ones who destroyed the roof.

Come on. It was not the left or the democratic center that destroyed the roof, it was the right. It’s not the left that is leaving the legacy of a primary deficit for next year, it’s the right. It’s Paulo Guedes, it’s Bolsonaro.

What I want to see is what Guedes will do to solve this fiscal if Bolsonaro — God forbid — wins the election. But nobody demands that from Bolsonaro. He’s a candidate, he needs to explain himself.

His first reaction after Tebet supported Lula was to say he would vote against Bolsonaro. Only later did he open the vote for Lula. Why is it so difficult to vote for PT? I was PT. I used the PT’s red star as my son’s diaper pin. I had a Lula poster in my room in the early 1980s. I started to move away from the PT when I saw the lack of reconciliation between fiscal policy and its objectives. I dropped out once and for all when I met Mario Covas. There came a light on how I wanted to do things. You have to have a responsible fiscal policy to maintain a social agenda. That’s it for me.

My difficulty is absolutely personal. I suffered a lot at the hand of PT militancy. I was unduly attacked during the privatization process. But to open the vote, I also had to wait for Simone’s negotiations.

Now, what really worries me is the country giving a second warrant to a president who should have been impeached since 2020. I’ve defended that ever since.

Because? Bolsonaro has committed numerous crimes of responsibility. What was his management in the pandemic? That famous meeting, recorded in 2020, is enough. Just pay attention to what was said there. They spoke of armed militia, of punishing mayors because of social isolation, of passing the herd in the environmental area. But people forget. The election of Eduardo Pazuello [ex-ministro da Saúde, questionado pela lentidão na compra de vacinas] is there to show it.

Mrs. was the economic coordinator of a presidential campaign for a candidate, who also had a female deputy. A thoroughbred plate. How did the political environment for women in the campaign seem to you? This question is very difficult for me. I participate in politics, through Tasso since 1991, in an indirect way. I was already a minority among men. My personal experience is very different from the experience Simone reports.

What I saw in the campaign was an absurd pressure for her to give up the candidacy. I don’t know if a man would have as much determination to move forward as she did.

The funny thing is that I hadn’t personally met Simone until then. I had seen it three other times. Her name was always raised as deputy. In these two, I remember what she said, but if they like her so much, why can’t she be a plate head?

When she invited me, she was direct. She sent a WhatsApp message asking if I could speak, and has already called: “I want a female spokesperson in my campaign, like yours, liberal, with a social look, who has the ability to communicate what the economy is.” She had this combo.

There was that moment when, during the launch of the name of the deputy, Mara Gabrilli, it was a festival of sexist phrases said by her former PSDB colleagues. Did that bother you? Then you need to discount. Some talk nonsense about women forever. But Tasso and I have had a relationship of trust in politics for 31 years. It’s close and fun. When he says I’m a rebel, in his mind, it’s a compliment, because I’m always restless, raising the debate. What was bad was that he later said “we’ll find a way”, because he knows he doesn’t have to control me.

It is obvious that the fact that we are from another generation weighs heavily and that we have taken as a joke certain comments that are unacceptable today. What I thought was funny back then, which went in one ear and out the other, the current generation doesn’t allow.

I can say that I learned something about it. If you asked me ten years ago if I was discriminated against, I would say emphatically that none. I didn’t celebrate International Women’s Day. I didn’t want to be highlighted for being a woman. I thought we just had to be treated like men. But later, as time passed, I began to realize that certain differences in treatment didn’t make sense as I supposed.

Once, after a long meeting, everyone went to dinner. It was just me as a woman. When it was time to write down the drinks, they were ordering whiskey, and the waiter jumped me. I complained, “What about me?” Everyone looked at me in astonishment. It was clear they didn’t understand how I had the courage to drink whiskey in the midst of ten men. A politician, who I won’t name, even asked: “But do you drink whiskey”?

Today I understand that my trajectory has a meaning, and whoever manages to pierce the bubble needs to speak up. We do need to discuss gender parity, inclusion, salary and educational differences. My head has changed a lot. Today, I would say I’m a feminist — I use that word that wouldn’t come out of my mouth in the past.


X-RAY – Elena Landau, 64

Born in Rio de Janeiro, she is a lawyer and economist, with a master’s degree in Economics from PUC-RJ, where she was a professor in the Department of Economics. She served on the board of directors of several companies, including Vale, Cemig, AES and Eletrobras, where she also chaired the board. She was director of Privatization at BNDES during the government of Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

Partner at Sergio Bermudes law firm, she also taught at the Faculty of Law at FGV-RJ. In political life, she was economic advisor to the PSDB presidency during Tasso Jereissati’s administration and acted as coordinator of Simone Tebet’s economic program (MDB). She is a columnist for the newspaper O Estado de S. Paulo.

You May Also Like

Recommended for you