Brazil General Election 2014: Aecio Neves Would Make A Better President than the Incumbent President Dilma Rousseff

I'll admit to being incredibly uneducated in this area, and while I did do some inquistion into Brazillian politics, I'm not entirely complacent applying my assertions until I make some leeway in cross examination. I'll open with several minor arguments to start this debate.

Aecio Neve's served three positions in Brazil's legislature. Representative, federal congress president, and senator. Aecio Neve's has connections in the National Congress. A lifetime of participation negotiating with representatives and presiding over an effective legislature. Aecio Neve's has extensive backing in both PSDB and some elements of the PT.  That is the sort of experience, incumbent president Dilma Roussef lacks. Throughout democratic history, executive's with networks and influential leadership in a national legislature have far better chances of passing legislation. Richard Nixon and Lyndon B Johnson had two of the highest legislation rates in the world. Both were veterans in the legislature, which carried over to their presidency.

A president should have more responsibility than just running an inactive military, or signing laws into effect. A good president should be at the Chamber of Deputies everyday, working with legislators and lawmakers to pass economic and social reform for the people. Aecio Neve's might not be the most vigorously supported candidate in Brazil, but he certainly has the knowledge and training to garner a wide political mandate in Brazil's National Congress. Whereas Dilma Rousseff, a former guerrilla, can not claim the same political upbringing.

Dilma Rousseff got into power out of being the perfect "Socialist Revolutionary Figurehead" for the Worker's Party. Aecio Neve's is a real politican, who can enact real reform. 

Even though the results of the elections have already been announced, I believe that the Brazilian elections is still a relevant issue.

On this debate, I'll take the position that Dilma Rousseff is a better choice for president than her opponent Aécio Neves (even though, as a Brazilian I didn't vote for any of the two, but I'll take this position for the sake of the debate)

First, I believe that, since this subject is completely unknown by most of our audience, it's necessary to introduce the main elements of this presidential race, particularly, the candidates and the parties:

First, I could not help noticing that apparently, my opponent thinks this is a jungle:

The time when the PSDB rule the country was also the period in which it moved away from the left-wing position it was initially intended to have. The main reason for that were the policies implemented by FHC's government, that not only didn't improved the lives of the poorest people in the country, but also had a terrible impact in many of them, not to mention the submissive and uninspiring foreign policy implemented by the same man that decades before had recognized the political and economical dependency on the rich nations as the main reason for the underdevelopment of the poorest countries. My opponent might try to use the Real Plan, which tucanos claim to be a creation of FHC, as an argument in favor of the PSDB economic policies, but this argument isn't sound, first because the Real Plan was created during the government of Itamar Franco (1992-1994), and most of the ideas linking FHC with the plan was mostly electoral rhetoric made in the 1994 race created to favor FHC who was then Itamar's ally. While the attributing the origing of the Real plan to the PSDB is debatable, the fact that FHC's government handled it  terribly is not. Nowadays Aécio criticizes Dilma because the inflation rates in her government are a little close to the ceiling of 6.5% established by the Real Plan, while conveniently forgetting that those rates were above the ceiling during the majority of FHC's term. The biggest legacy of the PSDB was definitely not the Real Plan, but the giant debt created by that government, which by the way was the most indebted government in the history of the country, being forced to seek help from the IMF not once nor twice, but three times in eight years, and in return, the government had to implement tough austerity measures that caused a terrible unemployment crisis at the end of it's term. It's not a surprise that inequality rose under that government that deceptively calls itself "social democratic". 

After looking at the worst data from the FHC government, some tucanos would say that they were only a necessary collateral effect of the stabilization of the economy which according to them was the only thing that allowed the PT to make the social advances that even they agree that it did and is still doing, however the fact that the tucanos had to resort to the IMF three times and that they end their government in a terrible crisis with no control over inflation plus high unemployment already shows that there was no such a thing as economic stabilization when they were in power, and that's not all: after taking power, the PT not only were able to make the social development that the PSDB had failed to do , but they also handled the economy much more successfully than the PSDB ever did, and under Lula, the country went from debtor to the IMF to lender, and kept the inflation under control, so it's obviously that there was nothing of necessary on the mismanagement of the economy conducted by the PSDB, and that economical stability and social programs aren't mutually exclusive, as the tucanos might try to argue. Unlike the PSDB, the PT has as it's main legacy the social programs that had as consequences a sharp drop in poverty and inequality in level that had never been seen before in the country. It's interesting that my opponent tries to use the social programs like "Bolsa Família" and programs to combat rural poverty as if they are an achievement of Aécio Neves administration, while they are in fact the most important programs of the Federal Government. It's true that Aécio tried use those programs, which he gave no substantial contribution to create, to boost his popularity in his state, but it's also true that this dishonest appropriation of the Federal Government success is the only reason for his  re-election as governor in 2006 and election to the senate in 2010, but it didn't last long, after he faced those who were really responsible for that development in this year's election, he suffered a triple defeat in Minas Gerais: he lost in both the first and the second rounds and also failed to boost the PSDB candidate for governor, who lost to the PT still on the first round.

My opponent still tries to argue that Aécio would have more skills to deal with congress only because he was president of the Chamber of Deputies when his coalition hold a vast majority of that house, while choosing to ignore the fact that the current composition of the congress is completely different from the one that he faced 13 years ago. Between 1998 and 2002, out of the 513 seats on the Chamber of Deputies, a total of 295, that is, almost 60% of the total was held by the four parties that supported president Fernando Henrique Cardoso on the 1998 elections: PSDB, PFL (later renamed DEM), PP, and PTB, while about 100 other seats were held by the PMDB and other parties that, despite not supporting FHC on the elections could easily turn to his side on exchange for some ministries or other benefits, so the government had an undisputed majority. 

The situation is completely different now, the 9 parties that supported Aécio Neves managed to get only 128 seats, that is only a quarter of the Chamber of Deputies, and they also lost 5 seats in the senate, holding less than a quarter of its seats, and even if Aécio managed to gather support from the parties that supported other opposition candidates like Marina Silva he would still only get a total of 204 deputies and 27 senators, which is still far from being a majority, also the fact that the seats are now much more distributed across several parties than in 1998 pose a challenge that Aécio didn't faced in 2001, when 50% of the congress was held by only 3 allied parties and the whole chamber had only 13 paries, the biggest of which had over 100 seats, while now it's only possible to reach 50% with 5 parties , including both the PT and the PSDB, who are unlikely to ever make an alliance, and there is a total of 28 parties represented, the biggest of which is the PT (opposition to Aécio) holding only 70 deputies (the PSDB is only the third biggest party, with only 54 deputies elected), so, if elected, Aécio would face a congress much different from the one he lead years ago and would definitely had a much harder time than Dilma has now, since she already have a majority with the 9 parties that support her candidacy

It's also important to point the fact that, in 2011, a large number of oppositionist deputies and senators, mostly from the DEM, left their parties to form the PSD, a new party that now is a strong supporter of the government. By that time, Aécio was already the main leader of the opposition in congress, so if he failed to prevent this from happening it's a proof that he is not that good as a leader when the numbers aren't on his sides, as they were in 2001.

This argument is extremely confusing. The real plan wasn't mentioned once in my arguments, and the policy, as the opposition states, was instituted under the Itamar Franco government, not the PDSB or Aecio Neves. This argument shouldn't be given credibility, because it wasn't made, nor do the modern PDSB continue to use this plan. Which went extinct in the 90's.

The argument is irrelevant to the debate.The Aecio Neves is not FHC, so arguments criticizing the Aecio Neves for FHC policies just don't make sense. The argument "Tucano way of governing", after vigorous study, should be completely ignored. While I think the opposition was trying to credibility snipe the PDSB, but it was kind of out of place and outdated. 

In fact, many argue that the extreme inflation rates of Brazil's currency at the time boosted them to trade power status. 

Again, the opposition is attacking former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso to discredit Aecio Neves. This is a fallacy. The whole argument is a tale of how Cardoso was bad and the PT is good for not being in Cardoso's coalition. It really doesn't promote an image that the PT are good at governing. Just that the PT don't govern like Cardoso. There is no solvency in this argument.

The opposition beat around the bush with Bolsa Familia and Management Shock. The opposition complains that Aecio Neves got unfairly elected for supporting these programs. I don't think so. I think Aecio Neves got elected because he DID support these programs. The other arguments don't really influence the case. Saying that Aecio Neves isn't qualified for governor because he failed to be reelected for a third term in Minas Gerais isn't exactly an argument that he shouldn't be president. 

This argument comes down to perspective. I refuted this last round, but the opposition is keen on restating instead of rebutting. The opposition views Aecio Neves as not being Congressionally experienced simply because the PDSB and 3 other parties held a vast congressional coalition in his time. I say that this is proof of his merit. Aecio Neves formed one of the largest, most powerful, and effective coalitions in Brazils history. Having one of the highest legislation rates in history, overseeing Brazil in a time of vast economic growth. Aecio Neves had it easy because he was good at his job. 

Aecio Neves held five positions. Governor, Deputy Representative, President of the Chamber, Senator, and President of the PDSB. Dilma Rousseff can never claim that experience. Dilma Rousseff had extremely low approval ratings and mandates during her reelection. Dilma Rousseff will likely have an approval rating below 25% by the time she leaves the presidency. 

I agree with the opposition. Aecio Neves would of had a harder time in congress 5 years before his time as president. But the job would of still got done, like it always has under his time in office. Aecio Neves has a lifetime of experience in politics, holding positions in the highest places in government. That is invaluable. Aecio Neves and Dilma Rousseff believe in the same things. This comes down to who will have a better chance of enacting their reforms. 

This argument is very irrelevant, like the one with Cardado's. Aecio Neve's shouldn't be judged for what his father believed and supported. Aecio Neves earned all his offices in post dictatorship Brazil. There's no proof to the contrary. 

I pushed only a couple of points this debate, but I'm sure they're all very strong. Me and Joe have vigorously followed this presidential election, so it would be appreciated if the judges can show gracious and fair judging. Thank you, and vote pro.