Journal of Politics in

Latin America
Montambeault, Françoise, and Graciela Ducatenzeiler (2014), Lula’s Brazil and
Beyond: An Introduction, in: Journal of Politics in Latin America, 6, 3, 3–14.
URN: http://nbn-resolving.org/urn/resolver.pl?urn:nbn:de:gbv:18-4-7914
ISSN: 1868-4890 (online), ISSN: 1866-802X (print)

The online version of this article can be found at: <www.jpla.org>

Published by
GIGA German Institute of Global and Area Studies, Institute of Latin American Studies
and Hamburg University Press.

The Journal of Politics in Latin America is an Open Access publication.

It may be read, copied and distributed free of charge according to the conditions of the
Creative Commons Attribution-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.

To subscribe to the print edition: <ilas@giga-hamburg.de>

For an e-mail alert please register at: <www.jpla.org>

The Journal of Politics in Latin America is part of the GIGA Journal Family which includes:
Africa Spectrum ● Journal of Current Chinese Affairs ● Journal of Current Southeast
Asian Affairs ● Journal of Politics in Latin America ● <www.giga-journal-family.org>
„„„ Journal of Politics in Latin America 3/2014: 3–14 „„„

Lula’s Brazil and Beyond: An Introduction

Françoise Montambeault and Graciela Ducatenzeiler

After two successive presidential terms, the leader of the Partido dos
Trabalhadores (PT) – the Workers’ Party – Luis Inacio Lula da Silva, left
office in 2011.1 After his first electoral victory in 2002, many observers
of the Brazilian political arena expected a radical shift in the country’s
public policies towards the left. These expectations were rapidly toned
down by the moderate nature of the policies and changes implemented
under Lula’s first government. Notwithstanding, Lula has succeeded in
becoming one of the most popular presidents in Brazilian history and, by
the end of his second term, about 90 percent of the population approved
of his presidency. He attracted a large consensus among leftist forces in
favor of market policies, which were accompanied by an important rise
in the minimum wage and pension, as well as the expansion of social
policies like his flagship program Bolsa Família. Some of his opponents
grew to trust him as he tightened fiscal policy and repaid external debt.
His government promoted growth through the adoption of economic
measures that supported productive investments, including investor-
friendly policies and partnerships between the public and private sectors.
At the end of his second term, poverty and inequality had been signifi-
cantly reduced, which had effects not only on wealth distribution, but
also on growth by increasing domestic demand. Lula’s Brazil also gained
international recognition and approbation, becoming an emerging inter-
national actor and without a doubt a leader in Latin America.
In the 2010 election, Dilma Rousseff was elected as the first female
president in the history of Brazil. She had been Lula’s previous chefe de
gabinete, and benefited from his support throughout the presidential cam-
paign. Among the most important challenges Dilma faced during her
first term in office was to live up to the expectations raised by Lula while
advancing her own agenda in a completely different socioeconomic con-
text. As we reflect on Lula’s successor taking office for a second term in
2014, facing both new and old challenges, a whole new set of questions

1 This special issue is the result of discussions and exchanges that happened
during the International Conference Le Brésil de Lula, held at the Université de
Montréal on 11–12 October 2012. The authors would like to thank the confer-
ence participants and discussants, who all contributed to the richness of the
discussions on this occasion. We would also like to thank the authors of this
special issue, as well as the editors of JPLA.
„„„ 4 Françoise Montambeault and Graciela Ducatenzeiler „„„

about Lula’s presidency and his legacy emerges. What is the actual legacy
of Lula’s two terms in office? To what extent did it represent a break
from previous models of political, social and economic development?
What events or feats explain the successes of Lula’s administration? Are
they attributable to Lula or to the PT, or are they best understood in
relation to democratization and the institutionalization of coalition-led
multiparty presidentialism? With the history of the PT and its ascension
as a key player in the political system being closely linked to the history
of Lula, how do sources of electoral support affect the challenges ahead
for Dilma, for the PT, and for Brazil more generally?
This special issue of the Journal of Politics in Latin America, ‘Lula’s
Brazil and Beyond’, addresses these important questions, looking back at
the crucial eight years of Lula’s presidency, at his legacy, and at how they
play out in shaping Dilma’s and the PT’s current challenges in govern-
ment. It brings together scholars from different perspectives who exam-
ine the legacies of Lula and the PT, looking at the continuities and rup-
tures on a variety of subjects, including the incorporation and participa-
tion of the popular sector and of civil society more generally, and the
institutionalization of democratic practices versus the persistence of
personalistic politics. While the contributors to this special issue devel-
oped their arguments from diverse – sometimes complementary, some-
times even opposing – perspectives, one trend emerges across all the
papers in this collection. They all emphasize the notion that, while Lula’s
rise to power opened an era of hope for change, notwithstanding im-
portant ruptures associated with the modo petista de governar continually
shaped Lula’s policies and are central to understanding the challenges of
government faced by and still ahead for Dilma, and for the wider Brazili-
an left. With successes and hopes came higher social expectations, and
this may well present an obstacle for the PT as it tries to garner support
in the longer run.
The first three authors deal with continuities and ruptures in public
policies during Lula’s two terms of office, and their legacy. These papers
look at the main areas of change and renewal Lula’s government was
expected to bring about through his political agenda. The areas covered
are: social inclusion (Wendy Hunter); participatory governance (Evelina
Dagnino and Claudia Texeira); and the struggle against corruption (Ma-
nuel Balán).
The last two papers then look at this legacy from a different angle,
from the perspective of electoral success. The areas covered are: the institu-
tionalization of the PT (Camille Goirand); and the proximity of lulismo
and petismo as the sources of electoral support (David Samuels and Cesar
„„„ Lula’s Brazil and Beyond: An Introduction 5 „„„

Zucco). These papers represent two opposing angles by which we can

start to unravel answers to complex questions, such as: ‘How will the
party be able to thrive and retain popular support over time?’ and ‘Can
the electoral successes and challenges of the left be understood beyond
Lula?’
As the papers in this collection emphasize, even if the PT is well in-
stitutionalized and has a basis of militants and supporters of its own, for
petismo to transcend the image of Lula as the strong president and to
thrive on its own, its leaders have to stay closer to the party’s founda-
tional principles, with which Lula was deeply and intrinsically associated,
but which he has only partially adhered to in reality.

Understanding Lula’s Legacy: A Modo Petista

de Governar?
In democratic Brazil, the question of institutions drew most of the atten-
tion of social scientists in various ways. As Power argues,
appraisals of Brazilian political institutions have evolved from a
diagnosis of dysfunctionality in the first decade of democracy, to a
revisionist trumpeting of ‘efficient secrets’ in the second decade
(Power 2010: 28).
In other words, analysts of Brazilian politics moved on from a pessimis-
tic diagnosis of the capacity of governments to overcome the institution-
al constraints imposed by strong presidentialism and fragmented legisla-
tures, to more optimistic diagnoses emphasizing the governance equilib-
rium created by the Brazilian institutional design. For others, coalitional
presidentialism was the source of institutional constraints and provided
equilibrium (Power 2010). There is now substantial consensus in Latin
American literature that neither strong presidents nor coalition govern-
ments necessarily affect governability. In other words, institutional de-
sign is not necessarily responsible for the success or failure of govern-
ment initiatives. Similar institutions can lead to different policy results.
As discussed by Melo and Pereira (2013) the questions are there-
fore: ‘How do presidents keep multiparty coalitions stable in Brazil?’,
‘What are the trade-offs accepted by the president in the name of gov-
ernability?’, and ‘What are the consequences of these compromises on
policy outcomes, and on the political project agenda of the president and
his party?’. The first three papers in the collection look at these ques-
tions, by assessing Lula’s legacy in three policy areas crucial to the PT’s
specific partisan identity and original project principles, the so-called
„„„ 6 Françoise Montambeault and Graciela Ducatenzeiler „„„

modo petista de governar. These areas are: social policy, citizen participation,
and anti-corruption measures.
The main objective of Lula’s administration when he came to office
was probably the fight against poverty and inequality. Being a central
part of the PT’s program, this policy issue and Lula’s personal commit-
ment to it, has contributed to his popularity. A combination of welfare
policies has been instrumental in fulfilling this goal. The famous condi-
tional cash transfer (CCT) program, Bolsa Família, is probably the most
important welfare policy, and is the main focus of Wendy Hunter’s con-
tribution. By comparing the social policies during the very different eras
of Vargas and Lula, her article analyses the politics of incorporation of
the popular sector through social policies. Emphasizing who benefits
from social policies and how they do so, her comparison reveals that in
Brazil, incorporation of the popular sectors took place in both eras, even
though this occurred through different policy mechanisms directed to-
ward distinct sectors of the population.
Wendy Hunter looks at long-term social inclusion, examining and
comparing two welfare policy approaches: Vargas’ approach during Es-
tado Nôvo on the one hand, and Lula’s approach, originating from the
post-1988 period, and implemented since 2003. While Hunter’s analysis
highlights elements of continuity between the two periods, her compari-
son also reveals important differences under the two regimes in the na-
ture of inclusion (the coverage and redistribution mechanism) regarding
the beneficiaries of the welfare programs. Under Vargas, social policy
was corporatist-oriented, covering the formal sector, excluding the rural
sectors and most of those who lived outside the urban areas. Benefits
were generally given by way of patronage networks. In contrast, Lula’s
citizenship regime was characterized by the inclusion of the poor who
were previously excluded by the corporatist model. Through social poli-
cies targeting individuals and their families rather than groups and cor-
porations, there were different beneficiaries, and the benefits were dis-
tributed through bureaucratic provisioning.
Despite these differences, Hunter notes important continuities be-
tween the two periods. She argues that there are similarities in the ways
those policies were instrumentalized by the presidents, affecting the
nature of the relationship between the state and society. In both cases,
she finds that welfare policies are not the outcome of initiatives taken by
those sectors that benefit from the adopted policies. In both cases, civil
society remains a marginal part of the equation. Institutions do not seem
to matter either in the structuration or implementation of the policies. In
fact, social inclusion through welfare policies is orchestrated from above
„„„ Lula’s Brazil and Beyond: An Introduction 7 „„„

by the state and, even more so, by a generous leader, a strong president,
“with Vargas seen as the benevolent father in the first instance and Lula
as the generous provider in the second” (Hunter, this issue). Thus, her
analysis shows that, if specific poverty reduction mechanisms and social
inclusion processes can vary across different institutional models, the
way they are articulated by and attributed to strong presidents remains
constant over time in Brazil. Although the reduction of poverty and
inequality has been on the PT agenda since its origins, the incorporation
model sustained by the president’s social policy legacy, and not the par-
ty’s, contributed to personifying Lula as the strong presidential figure.
At the core of the PT political agenda has also been the idea that
civil society should take an active and participatory role in public policy
making and in the struggle towards social inclusion in Brazil’s highly
unequal society. From the time of the PT’s origins in social movements
and civil society groups, its agenda has always demanded more radical
and participatory forms of democracy. As they gained enough popular
support to be elected at the municipal level, several local PT leaders
pushed forward the participatory agenda in their own communities dur-
ing the 1990s with initiatives such as participatory budgeting. But, did
that participatory principle become federal policy when Lula took the
presidential office in 2003? In their article, Evelina Dagnino and Ana
Claudia Teixeira examine Lula’s legacy with respect to the so-called ‘Bra-
zilian architecture of participation’, and to his actual contribution to
participatory innovation in policy-making processes at the federal level.
They argue that, although civil society participation is a policy area where
some important advances have been made during Lula’s two terms in
office, it has been characterized by tensions, fragmentation, ruptures and
continuities with the past. At the federal level, the numbers of national
policy conferences have increased, and the sectors of public policy in-
volved in dialogue and discussion in these instances have diversified.
Lula has also created new institutions for participation, and has included
new thematic areas in the participatory architecture. Thus, there is no
doubt that participation has increased in quantitative terms. Dagnino and
Teixeira, however, express some serious doubts regarding the quality of
such participation. They argue that participation under Lula did not sys-
tematically mean ‘power sharing’ with civil society actors, and point out
that as president he preferred to use terms such as ‘dialogue’, ‘listening’
or ‘working together’. 
As their analysis reveals, the question of how far Lula has imple-
mented the PT’s participatory principle is not a simple one to answer.
Lula was a president who was obliged to govern a fragmented coalition,
„„„ 8 Françoise Montambeault and Graciela Ducatenzeiler „„„

so the question reflects the tense and sometimes even contradictory

relationship he had with the party’s founding principles. It also highlights
two issues: inherent disputes within the PT itself with regard to the idea
of participation and how it should be articulated; and the ambiguity of
the novel relationship with civil society organizations in the context of
the ascension to power of the party with which they have had strong
historical links.
A third element was a central part of the PT’s and Lula’s original
political project: anticorruption and transparency policies. However,
Manuel Balán’s article shows that Lula and his government did not do
much better than his predecessor in this regard, and that corruption has
persisted in Brazilian politics. His take on the Mensalão corruption scan-
dal in Brazil suggests that, in fact, this policy goal was somewhat sacri-
ficed by the PT-led coalition in government in the name of the fight
against poverty. The Mensalão (big monthly payment) scandal, involved
the payment of millions of dollars to politicians in order to buy support
for the coalition. Under the institutional constraints of coalition presi-
dentialism, Lula’s government thus faced an important trade-off between
implementing his social policy and providing good governance.
Mensalão was a manifestation of Lula’s weak legacy in the area of
corruption and transparency. Balán’s contribution looks at impacts of the
scandal on electoral dynamics, on the president himself, on his successor,
and on the party. He argues that, even if political coalitions were partly
responsible for the corruption problems that characterized the govern-
ments of Lula and, then, Dilma, the scandals did not affect their popular-
ity and presidential strength. On the contrary, the PT, as a political party,
and the rest of the political system, took the blame for the corruption.
Lula was rewarded for implementing successful social policies that the
public perceived as being the result of his own decision (see Hunter on
this issue). Even though the corruption scandals originated from a need
for Lula to assemble a wide coalition in Congress around his social policy
program, they were mostly dissociated from him, and associated instead
with the party. As for Dilma, the zero tolerance for corruption campaign
she launched seems to be paying off. Balán observes that she gets all the
credit for anticorruption and transparency measures being implemented
by her government.
Balán’s article, therefore, highlights that the PT and Lula did not es-
cape corruption scandals, since corruption persists in Brazilian politics.
The 2014 election, which provided the theater for corruption allegations
against high-profile PT leaders in the Petrobras scandal, is only one more
manifestation of this. However, Balán’s contribution also shows that
„„„ Lula’s Brazil and Beyond: An Introduction 9 „„„

even if corruption partly originates from the fact that governability issues
in a coalition-based system demand the president to engage in strategies
of accommodation with political elites, there is disagreement on the way
corruption has been perceived as remote from the president. As Balán
notes, there was a trade-off: corruption practices led to setbacks in the
anticorruption and transparency agenda, but also allowed Lula to get his
very popular anti-poverty policies approved by Congress. Balán con-
cludes that, although corruption did not affect the approval ratings of
Lula and Dilma and prevent them from being elected in the short term,
the effect may be more important in the longer run since corruption
scandals have contributed little to the building of the Brazilian democrat-
ic political order.

Understanding the Challenges Ahead: On the

Sources of PT’s Electoral Success
The first three papers have demonstrated that strong presidentialism has
enabled the stability of the multiparty coalition-based political system,
which has maintained continuity in the model of governance in Brazil;
but it has also elevated the presidential figure to be the main player in
governance. As a consequence, many of the recent economic, political
and social successes in Brazil have been attributed to Lula himself, the
strong president. The results of the 2006 election support that view. To
what extent can the recent perceived successes in Brazil be also attribut-
ed to him? How does this perception affect the challenges that lie ahead
for his successor, Dilma Rousseff? More generally, in the context of
strong presidentialism in a fragmented multiparty system, is the PT likely
to thrive as a key player in Brazilian electoral politics once its leaders,
Dilma and Lula, have departed? Understanding the challenges faced by
Dilma during her first term, and for the PT more broadly, demands that
we better understand the origins of its electoral support. The two final
papers of the collection undertake to address this issue from two differ-
ent angles.
The article by Camille Goirand refers back to the ascension of the
PT as a key player in the Brazilian political electoral system. A conclusion
of Goirand’s analysis is that the figure of Lula was not the only driving
force behind his party’s local electoral successes in 2002 and 2006; it was
rather the party itself that underwent an important change from within.
This was brought about by way of its institutionalization, which relates to
both its inclusion into democratic institutions it originally opposed and
the parallel re-articulation of its militants’ relationships with the party.
„„„ 10 Françoise Montambeault and Graciela Ducatenzeiler „„„

In 2002, as a result of its well-documented transformation process

(Hunter 2010), the party succeeded in broadening its local electoral sup-
port in the north and northeast, regions where it had been traditionally
weak (Hunter 2010). Originally formed by an amalgamation of oppo-
nents of the authoritarian regime, social activists, union members and
contentious social movements (Keck 1992), the party has gradually trans-
formed from within to become a moderate party in government; a party
which large segments of the population identify with and participate in.
By doing so, the PT did not compromise its original principles, however,
and it should not be characterized as an example of the failure of social
movements, but rather as the culmination of a complex process of
change with multiple facets. This institutionalization has taken three
forms: firstly, the originally radical discourse has moderated; secondly,
the party leaders have professionalized, and their relationship to social
movements has changed; and thirdly, as a new form of participation
developed, a distance between the party elite and the rank-and-file
emerged, which led to a change in party identity. Looking at the case of
Recife, a major capital of the northeast in the state of Pernambuco,
Goirand shows that, while the party integrated democratic institutions,
the strategies and behavior of its rank-and-file members and leaders
towards these objectives changed during this process, going from a logic
of contention to one of public action and electoral politics. Such a
change requires not just an adaptation of the party to the realities of
electoral politics, but rather a deep transformation of its activists’ goals
and of their definition of social engagement, their own political identifi-
cation. Thus, today’s petista political identification reflects the interactions
between the institutionalization of the PT and the changes in the way its
main leaders and partisans think about the party and their role within
Brazilian society. This might be closer to the logic of public action, but is
not necessarily antithetical to the core principles of the original logic of
contention by way of social inclusion and participation.
David Samuel and Cesar Zucco’s paper addresses the question of
the sources of electoral successes from a different, yet complementary,
angle. It looks at the distinctions and intersections between two forms of
potentially distinct political identifications among the Brazilian electorate:
petismo and lulismo. Their analysis deconstructs the common belief that,
since Lula historically reached a wider and more varied support base than
the PT (as seen in the 2006 election), the rise and success of the party
should for the most part be attributed to him. Following this common
argument, his charisma, personal history, rhetorical style and government
„„„ Lula’s Brazil and Beyond: An Introduction 11 „ „ „

policies lie at the heart of lulismo, or at the source of Lula’s popularity

rooted in voters’ personalistic attachment to the leader.
What, therefore, is the future for the PT without Lula? For Samuels
and Zucco, if lulismo is petismo, the latter may survive as a political identity
and thrive as one of the main political parties in Brazil in the aftermath
of Lula. Lulismo as a political identity is a weak phenomenon that mainly
reflects voters’ retrospective evaluation of Lula’s government. Lulismo is
not grounded in the rhetorical appeal of a populist leader, as chavismo may
be in Venezuela, for example. Unlike Hugo Chávez, the Brazilian politi-
cal system does not revolve around Lula, and he does not retain the
same depth of influence on the party system that Vargas and Perón did.
His rhetorical style may be popular, but he does not possess the essential
attributes of a populist discourse, and is better categorized as a ‘pluralist’
or a left-liberal “using the machinery of the state to bring about greater
political and socioeconomic equality, but also opening the state to greater
participation from civil society, through gradual reform” (Samuels and
Zucco, this issue). The PT has never been a one-man or a populist party.
On the contrary, the party’s rise is best explained by its institutionaliza-
tion (see also Goirand, this issue), its organizational capacity and its po-
litical project. Petismo is not only fairly widespread around the country,
but it also qualifies as a real political identification. If, by attracting the
vote of the poor, Lula has gathered a different and wider support base
than the PT’s traditional constituency, it does not mean that lulismo has
become a stronger identity among those voters who rewarded Lula for
his policy performance. What is more, examining the common roots of
both concepts reveals that lulismo may actually be an embryonic form of
petismo, as those elements of the president’s performance that have been
acclaimed by the poor – greater participation and the reduction of ine-
quality – are the core principles of petismo, of the modo petista de governar.
As the party attempts to transpose lulismo into petismo, however, the
challenges are numerous, as Samuels and Zucco emphasize. They suggest
that, if the PT without Lula is to succeed in the long run, then it will
have to remain close to its original political project of social inclusion
and participation, which is the conceptual foundation of both lulismo and
petismo. Nonetheless, the future of the PT as a political party and a driv-
ing force of the Brazilian electoral system might be brighter than ex-
pected, even as Lula’s presence in the political arena fades away.
„„„ 12 Françoise Montambeault and Graciela Ducatenzeiler „„„

Conclusion
In contrast to what many early observers of Brazilian politics might have
argued just a few years ago, coalition-based presidentialism in the highly
fragmented multiparty system that characterized the country after its
democratization has proven to be efficient and has brought about policy
outcomes; this is because it also relies on strong presidents (Melo and
Pereira 2013). This may well be the case, but the articles in this collection
also suggest that such a governance model, based on compromises and
trade-offs, may also have unforeseen effects on partisan and electoral
politics. On the one hand, Lula may not have departed from the PT’s
original principles of participation and social inclusion, either in theory
or in his rhetoric, but the papers show that the transformations actually
achieved in these two domains have been less far-reaching than ex-
pected. On the other hand, the strong presidential figure central to mak-
ing the coalition system work (Melo and Pereira 2013), elevates the per-
sonality of the president at the expense of the party when it comes to
electoral politics. Lula has probably been rewarded electorally for the
good things he achieved during his two terms in office (Hunter and
Power 2007; Samuels and Zucco, this issue), and Dilma may have bene-
fited from this support since she has for the most part built on Lula’s
legacy, even in a much more difficult economic context.
If it is true that petismo is a stronger party identification than lulismo
is, then the challenge for Dilma was to become that strong president
herself in order to carry the PT political project further on. As the 2014
electoral campaign concluded on 26 October with her election as presi-
dent for a second term, it seems that Dilma has generally succeeded in
doing so. In March 2013, just before the June mass protests all around
the country, Dilma was still extremely popular with approval ratings
approaching 80 percent.2 Her approval ratings did go down after the first
days of the protests, but by the end of 2013, they were gradually going
up, as was her position in the opinion polls for the 2014 election. Some
may interpret the protests as a symbol of a general malaise, or a dissatis-
faction expressed by Brazilians toward the ambiguity of the policies and
the ‘left-neoliberal’ incorporation model developed by the PT (Saad-
Filho 2013), and by its presidential figures. More than a criticism of the
left-neoliberal model itself, this suggests that the protests of 2013 could
be interpreted as a discrepancy between the hopes and the actual possi-
bilities for change, as a symptom of the constraints imposed by the na-

2 Datafolha, Sao Paulo, November 2013.

„„„ Lula’s Brazil and Beyond: An Introduction 13 „ „ „

ture and functioning of the Brazilian democratic model, and of its insti-
tutional continuities beyond democratization and alternation in power.
This past October, however, Dilma, the PT candidate, has been
democratically re-elected by a short majority with 51.6 percent of the
vote; thus making this election exceptional by delivering the fourth con-
secutive presidential term in office for the same party in Brazil. After
winning by such a short margin against her PSDB opponent, Aécio
Neves, it looks like Lula’s political, social and economic legacy may have
vanished and even become a double-edged sword for Dilma and the PT.
This has become especially evident as the socioeconomic context chang-
es, and signs of governance fatigue start to show up after 12 years of the
same party in power. The rising middle class, the so-called ‘C class’ does
seem to have benefited from Lula’s policies in the context of economic
growth, but they now also have new expectations, both as democratic
citizens and as economic actors. Social movements and traditional PT-
allies are asking for a political reform of the institutions, promised by
Dilma after the June 2013 protests, but still not delivered. And corrup-
tion scandals revealed during the campaign may be coming to haunt this
administration. In the face of such changing realities, Dilma does not
have much room to maneuver, and new challenges certainly lay ahead
for the PT.

References
Cason, Jeffrey W., and Timothy J. Power (2009), Presidentialization,
Pluralization and the Rollback of Itamaraty: Explaining Change in
Brazilian Foreign Policy Making in the Cardoso-Lula Era, in: Interna-
tional Political Science Review, 30, 2, 117–140.
Hunter, Wendy (2010), The Transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil,
1989–2009, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Hunter, Wendy, and Timothy J. Power (2007), Rewarding Lula: The
Brazilian Election of 2006, in: Latin American Politics and Society, 49, 1,
1–30.
Kingstone, Peter R., and Timothy J. Power (2008), Democratic Brazil Revis-
ited, Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.
Limongi, Fernando (2006), Democracy in Brazil: Presidentialism, Party
Coalitions and the Decision Making Process, in: Novos Estudos, 76,
17–41.
Melo, Marcus André, and Carlos Pereira (2013), Making Brazil Work:
Checking the President in a Multiparty System, New York: Palgrave
Macmillan.
„„„ 14 Françoise Montambeault and Graciela Ducatenzeiler „„„

Power, Timothy J. (2010), Optimism, Pessimism, and Coalitional Presi-

dentialism: Debating the Institutional Design of Brazilian Democra-
cy, in: Bulletin of Latin American Research, 29, 1, 18–33.
Saad-Filho, Alfredo (2013), Mass Protests under ‘Left Neoliberalism’:
Brazil, June-July 2013, in: Critical Sociology, 39, 657–669.

Graciela Ducatenzeiler is a honorary professor of political science at

the Université de Montréal. Her research focuses on unions and political
regimes in Latin America. She has published in American and European
presses, and her articles appear in several journals, including Amérique
Latine, Canadian Journal of Political Science, Desarrollo Económico, Études inter-
nationales, Novos Estudos CEBRAP, Revista Mexicana de Ciencia Política, and
the Revue internationale de politique comparée.
E-mail: <graciela.ducatenzeiler@umontreal.ca>

Françoise Montambeault is an assistant professor of political science

at the Université de Montréal. Her research focuses on the dynamics and
impacts of citizen participation and deliberation in democratic institu-
tions in Latin America, especially in Mexico and Brazil. Her articles have
been published in the Journal of Civil Society, Latin American Politics and
Society, Politiques et Société, Participations, and the Journal of Politics in Latin
America. Her book The Politics of Participatory Democracy in Latin America:
Institutions, Actors and Interactions is forthcoming at Stanford University
Press in 2015.
E-mail: <francoise.montambeault@umontreal.ca>

O Brasil de Lula, e além: uma introdução

Keywords: Brazil, Worker’s Party, activist careers, institutionalization,

corruption
Palavras chaves: Brasil, Partido dos Trabalhadores, carreiras militantes,
instituicionalização, corrupción