Two nations. Two heads. One President, the other Prime Minister. The Presidential head recently demitted office upon completion of two terms, commanded a popularity rating of 80 percent. The other one, Prime Minister of a nation widely acclaimed and applauded around the world but his popularity rating across the country a dismal low but goes on bragging about his achievments albeit farther from truth.
Former President of Brazil, Luiz-Inacio-Da-D'Silva of Brazil, the largest Latin American country, since retired, followed market-friendly economic reforms and paid equal attention to social problems, empathetic towards the ones at the lower strata of society and tried his best for the uplift them, endowed with popularity and charisma was in office for two terms. As per Brazilian constitution the Head of State should have to demit office paving for another who could be his follower upon completion of two terms. Hence despite majority of the masses stood for his continuation in office by obliging constitutional requirements bowed out of office calling for fresh elections.
While Lula was at the helm of office it was the golden period of Brazil as he could read the pulse of the people. Never did he could he concentrate all his attention only on a section of the countrymen but his attention reached far and wide unlike his counterpart in India, world's largest democracy. Lula's counterpart in India, Prime Minister Dr. ManMohan Singh, a great advocate of market-friendly reforms, contrary to his claims paid heed to the voices of a minority and took interest, still takes interest in improving the 'lot' of this minority - the haves. Despite laying emphasis to social aspects and inclusive growth nothing substantial he could achieve, still doesn't do for those at the bottom ladder. He, his cohorts all, 24X7, brag about the high GDP growth inviting attention to the high growth trajectory achieved by the nation, meaning the growth has trickled down or percolated down to those at the bottom-level. But percolation of any kind has actually taken place, insteadly the entire GDP growth centered around the industrial and business tycoons. In this connection I recall the lines of former UN Secretary General Koffi Annan's article appeared in a national daily on the eve of 2nd Millenium Development Goals (MDGs) conference on poverty held in NewYork under the auspices of United Nations. He dwelt upon the fact that high GDP growth need not co-exist with the welfare of the down-trodden and therefore measuring poverty employing the yardstick of GDP growth is not correct. Still harping on the developments achieved by a country pointing towards the GDP growth has become somewhat fashionable as far as our rulers are concerned.
Two leaders of two countries preaching the same economic reforms, one living up to his promises, the other just mimicking the former makes amusing reading.
Indian leader has four more years left to demit office and the Brazilian leader following constitutional obligations already bowed out of office and it is election time there.
Lula has hand-picked his Chief of staff Dilma Rouseff (62) to contest for the prestigious post who is his close confident also. In the 1970s she joined a militant group to fight against the dictatorship, underwent years in prison and brutally tortured there by the then dictators. Unlike Lula her minus points are lack of charisma and popularity. In spite of that she was expected to scrape through without a run-off, ie. in the first round itself as she is hand-picked by Lula himself who still has a massive popularity rating of 80 percent.
But contrary to the expectations of Workers Party (PT) as also observers in and around Brazil calculated, she could garner 47 percent votes only and therefore a run-off has become inevitable. If she could garner 50 percent of votes in the first round itself the need of a run-off would not have been needed. The run-off is poised to take place in the last week of October.
Her close rival Jose Serra representative of the Conservative Party could acquire 33 percent and te third rival Mrs. Marina Silva, leader of Greens Party emerged with 19 percent votes.
As on today the result is fluid and in case Mrs Rouseff wouldn't be able to garner 50 percent in the next round, the Greens Party leader would turn out to be the king-maker if not the Queen herself.
Jose Serra, Conservative Party leader's aim if got elected is to cut public expenditure unlike Workers Party of Mrs. Rouseff which concentrates attention on public-private participation for infrastructure development, social justice for the betterment of the lot of the masses. Sort of adjustment with Greens Party accommodating their demands would prove beneficial and which ever party emerges successful in arriving at a deal in case the second round might turn out to be the replication of first round. Such a possibility is rare taking into account Lula's popularity rating hence chances are that Mrs.Rouseff herslef would emerge victorious in the end.
The lessons to be arrived at after comparing the leaders of both Brazil and India are a leader attentive to the needs and aspirations of the masses turn out to be the ideal leader - be it anyone.
No comments:
Post a Comment