Some Geopolitical Constraints That Marina Silva Would Face if She Ran in and Won Brazil's October Election

Wednesday’s plane crash that resulted in the death of Brazilian Presidential Candidate Eduardo Campos is a tragedy. Though Campos had been third in the polls there was some indication that his position was improving and even if he lost it was very likely that he would have ultimately become one of the more significant Brazilian politicians. As things stand now there is a great deal of speculation as to how his death will affect the race but the reality is that no one really knows. What we can do is develop scenarios that serve as models to help us predict what could come in a world that can change quickly. One possible scenario would be that Campos’s running mate Marina Silva will run. Though it would currently appear that Dilma Rousseff is favored to win reelection it does not hurt to question some of the challenges that Silva would face if she ran in and won October’s elections especially as she is viewed in some quarters as being unpredictable and some argue that the policies of a President Silva would be anti-business and negatively impact the economic development of the country. These concerns are not unjustified. That said, if she were to win the election it does not change the fact that she would be governing Brazil which is a landmass that has some developmental challenges that relate directly to geography.

The reality is that the richest counties in the world do not just have a surplus of natural resources and arable land which provide the wealth to develop substantial human capital and infrastructure. The richest countries also have favorable geography. By this I mean most of these states have well developed maritime and riverian port systems, are situated at latitudes that affords them enough of a growing season to feed their population, and have the bulk of their territory in temperate, relatively flat lands (1).  Brazil does fairly well with the first two conditions but relatively poorly with the third.

It is usually more expensive to build and maintain infrastructure in the tropics. It is not a surprise that Northern Brazil has historically been the poorest part of the country as the cost of building the requisite infrastructure to promote economic development has caused that region to lag behind the more prosperous south. A wealth gap has resulted in northerners moving to seek opportunity in the south while a lack of facilities have caused many of these migrants to settle in favelas where they do not always find the opportunity that they sought. This has served as a cause of social unrest in the past. Developing the Northern states of Brazil (which is where Silva and the recently deceased Campos hail from) and the infrastructure of the country in general is a strategic imperative for Brasilia. In recent years we have seen significant investment in improving southern port facilities in Vitória and Santos while in April northern port complexes in Miritituba and Barcarena were opened. The latter will reduce traffic in southern ports and will benefit from the expansion of the Panama Canal and the eventual construction of the Nicaragua Canal. Developments such as these have environmental consequences which Silva opposes but, if managed properly, they could provide economic opportunities that could help poorer communities some of whom would be part of her constituency. Silva has been in politics too long to be ignorant of this reality and naïve enough about its implications.

The reality is that winning October’s Presidential Election will only give the victor the powers of the head of state of the Federative Republic of Brazil it will not give them the ability to overcome the geographic challenges which the country faces. The difference between the candidates will be how they respond to these obstacles given the political, social and economic constraints that they face. If Marina Silva were to run and was elected she would not be able to rule by decree. It is not unreasonable to think that if elected Silva would pursue more environmentally friendly policies than her opponents would and that she might not be as business friendly. That said, it also must be noted that as a democratically elected leader she would have to take into account the aspirations of the Brazilian population as whole if she wishes to stay in power and not see some of her potential accomplishments undone in the event that she was not reelected.

As things stand now economic development usually results in a degree of environmental degradation. This reality is something that Silva has raised concerns about. Would President Silva have luxury to be as vocal about such issues as she has been in the past? After all, it is a lot easier to be an opposition candidate than a head of state. There are countless examples of politicians who behaved very differently than people expected when they assumed office. Certainly, former Brazilian President Lula is such an example. As things stand now it is too early to know if Silva will run in let alone win October’s election. That said, if she were to win it needs to be understood that she would face the same geographic and economic constraints that her opponents would face as well as a variety of other limitations that political and social realities would impose upon her. This reality would influence how she responds. After all, there is often a huge difference between doing what you want to do and doing what you actually can do. Reconciling her environmental concerns, the economic challenges that Brazil’s geography imposes that can only be ameliorated with some environmental cost, and the aspiration of the Brazilian population for a higher standard of living which could result from such developments would be a major challenge for Silva. It is likely, that if elected, she would have to make compromises. What these compromises would be remains to be seen.

1.  There are some exceptions here. For example, Singapore does not meet these requirements. However the state’s relatively small population, location near one of the most important shipping lanes in the world, and the fact that the city-state is small and thus requires less infrastructure than larger states makes it a unique case.

Will November Be a Transformational Month for Myanmar?

November could be an interesting month for Myanmar. This week, representatives from 18 armed, ethnic groups met at the Kachin Independence Organization’s headquarters in the northern town of Laiza to discuss entering into ceasefire negotiations with the government. If peace talks with the government commence, companies that have been wary of investing in the country might reconsider their positions. Signs that an agreement can be reached would be well timed, as they would come during a month when the country is hosting the Myanmar Port Development Forum and the Myanmar Mining Forum. Forums on agribusiness and investing in the country were held in October. Clearly, Naypyidaw is actively courting investors. Though Myanmar has a great deal of mineral wealth, it lacks the infrastructure to exploit it in an efficient manner. A ceasefire agreement combined with the proposed overhaul to the country’s 1994 mining law has the potential to attract investors who are willing to make the long-term commitments necessary to recoup investments in infrastructure.

Under Myanmar’s current mining law the Ministry of Mines serves as a non-equity partner yet it demands approximately 30% of minerals extracted as well as income tax and royalties. In addition to these terms, mining companies are currently responsible for compensating the occupiers of land despite the reality that there is no guide as to what the compensation should be. If reforms to the mining laws are passed and a guideline for compensation is established then the incentive to invest will increase, especially if political instability in the country decreases due to a ceasefire agreement. It is important to note that compensation for land is a difficult subject and it is likely that many people will not receive the compensation that they feel they are owed. This is unfortunate on a humanitarian level and it could contribute to instability in the country on a political and economic level. That said, disturbances from unarmed or poorly armed groups are not nearly as disruptive as the potential for violence posed by heavily armed ethnic militias.

Myanmar is not poor due to a lack of resources or geographic reasons such as being landlocked. The country is underdeveloped due to the decades of political oppression that is now beginning to dissipate. Myanmar has the resources to attract investors and an advantageous, geographic location that can help it to develop quickly. Reforms in the country will see it attain the level of development that its geographic location and resource base affords it. The question is how long this process will take. Trust needs to be built between a variety of factions. This takes time. That said, the process has begun. If a credible ceasefire agreement is reached and if the 1994 mining law is overhauled we could see a great deal of activity in Myanmar which would have a significant effect on trade in the Indian Ocean and economic development in the Asia Pacific region. November has the potential to be the start of this shift.