Revisiting the Lulismo and Petismo Debate

During Lula’s era, things were easier. The poor had a chance, the Black had value…and now, people don’t think like this; everything is more complicated.—A dark-skinned, nineteen-year-old, self-identified Morena woman from Itaparica Island, BahiaThe Bolsa Família program, the conditional cash transfer program implemented in 2004 during the first of Luis Inàcio “Lula” da Silva’s three terms as president of Brazil, lifted millions of Brazilians out of poverty. Bolsa Família beneficiaries received monthly cash stipends on the condition that their children regularly attended school and had regular medical checkups. The conditional aspect of this program changed under the administration of Lula’s successor, Jair Bolsonaro, who in 2021 replaced Bolsa Família with a new, more expansive, social welfare program called Auxílio Brasil. To make beneficiaries aware that Bolsonaro’s program was new and to clearly distinguish it from Lula’s Bolsa Família, a new debit card, emblazoned with Brazil’s green, yellow, and blue flag, was issued.Bolsonaro was a far-right president who often pushed conspiracy theories such as the COVID-19 being “a little flu.” At the beginning of the pandemic, he acted slowly to make vaccines available in Brazil. Additionally, he did not believe people should shut down businesses to stop the spread of the disease, and those most at risk were low-income Afro-Brazilian workers who could not work from home (Harrington 2021). Brazil had the second highest number of deaths from COVID-19, after the United States. During his time in office, he also cut funding for science research and funding to public universities. During his campaign for president in 2018 and throughout his term, he was known for publicly making racist, sexist, and homophobic comments. In contrast, during Lula’s first two terms as president, he supported social programs such as Bolsa Família to provide monthly stipends to low-income families. He also advocated for university affirmative-action programs and increased the number of public universities. Elected in 2022 to his third term as president, Lula continues to advocate for the poor and to support affirmative action programs. Similar to his first two terms, he appointed prominent Afro-Brazilians to federal ministries, including Anielle Franco as minister of racial equality, Margareth Menezes as minister of culture, Marina Silva as minister of the environment, and Silvio Almeida as minister of human rights.Both Lula and former president Dilma Rousseff supported Bolsa Família. Beyond meeting the requirement of poverty or extreme poverty, Auxílio Brasil provided families with an additional monthly stipend of R$100 (US$20) for students in their households aged twelve to seventeen who participated in school sports. Auxílio Brasil families with a student in the household who participated in national scientific competitions were also eligible for an additional R$100, and families who participated in family agriculture could receive an additional monthly stipend of R$200.Studying Auxilio Brasil beneficiaries allows an examination of whether voters make a distinction between Lula, the politician, and the Worker’s Party. Lulismo is the idea that voter support is due to Lula’s personality and his past performance as president from 2003–2010; petismo is the idea that voter support is based on political ideology, such as the principles of the Worker’s Party. Some of these principles include equality and state support of policies to ensure equality and opportunity.Petismo is defined as Worker’s Party support based on the principles of equality and participatory democracy, and it is often associated with middle-class social activists. Lulismo is viewed as a form of voter support based on retrospective voting and charismatic leadership. Do the concepts petismo and lulismo coexist when considering low-income Afro-Brazilian beneficiaries, or, as some scholars argue, are they distinct concepts? Some of the previously tested questions by scholars are: Is petismo different from lulismo? Do some voters demonstrate both petismo and lulismo? Are the two concepts interrelated? Given that Lula, the Worker’s Party presidential candidate, won by only 1.66 percent in 2022, capturing 50.83 percent of the vote compared to Bolsonaro’s 49.17 percent of the vote, it is not clear that the Worker’s Party had the same level of popularity it had during Lula’s first two terms as president. Regarding voter support of Lula, scholarly debates have focused on whether party support led to votes for Lula based on retrospective evaluations of Lula and his charisma or because of support of the Worker’s Party. Although Afro-Brazilians constitute 56 percent of the population, the lulismo and petismo debate generally does not focus on them as a key demographic.This on Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries in on this voting population, in a that is a Worker’s Party a of whether their support of Lula was based on political and or the petismo and lulismo debate in the of Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries new a debate that does not these voters by racial as is in Brazil. is that in percent of Bolsa Família beneficiaries were Afro-Brazilian Afro-Brazilian constitute percent of the are and The of Afro-Brazilian as social welfare beneficiaries their in that focus on social welfare and that only the of and the to the that the of and Afro-Brazilian and these vote In this to petismo and lulismo are the between Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil the Worker’s Party and their support for Lula in the 2022 presidential is by the that in the 2022 presidential in Brazil, Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries both petismo and to that the and principles of equality and an most often associated with the Worker’s Party. of these voters also that Lula was to for the In this for them he the and political of the Worker’s Party. Although and did not focus on Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries, their work focused on Afro-Brazilian low-income who and to for their and and in In this believe low-income Afro-Brazilian principles of equality, and it is that they for a political party that these principles and supported Lula, as former president, implemented policies to and to of Lula’s to the poor and for led to their a vote for Lula in the 2022 presidential to past focused on the between social welfare beneficiaries and voting for Lula, and scholars have that Bolsa Família beneficiaries were more to support Lula and the debate the distinction between lulismo and petismo is petismo a of as scholars are with in Brazil. is defined in as a political that the of participatory and equality and and voters who were not with the Worker’s Party for Lula in and and also that to middle-class social activists. Lulismo is viewed as a form of voter support based on retrospective voting and charismatic and have that lulismo and petismo are have focused on Lula voters who not have a Worker’s Party are also in and those who were who for that percent of Lula voters in the presidential were not with the Worker’s Party. In percent of people not with the Worker’s Party for that lulismo was not a new in it was in and is different from as it such as and and new and the that were more new to on retrospective evaluations of Lula’s In terms of political ideology, they that were more and new to that including the they for their not include questions on their in political and that and new were to Lula and did not include a on they did include and they with two and that the were not and did not their to and does not a political or party or a to In they that the did not include more new or more in and that were more and viewed Lula in a more people who had for a of time and those who had not for a of time and as two distinct that a political in and he that Lula voters were distinct voters who a political that from that of the Worker’s Party. He that a new were to from scholars that voting for Lula based on retrospective voting and and the are scholars who have that the concepts are and and and that petismo and lulismo are and that the of Lula, lulismo some scholars have lulismo only as a form of Lula based on of his time in office, scholars also believe that people are to his and In terms of and of and that political In this petismo also that these voters have an to principles by the Worker’s Party as in and believe that Lula’s in the presidential of Lula Worker’s Party who they believe in their to the president to the political that lulismo and that petismo that the Worker’s Party to Lula as the is in their and to make more to and for it is clear that the debate an that voting such as low-income Afro-Brazilian not an as a low-income Afro-Brazilian woman In their in a in social their of Lula and the Worker’s Party in terms of the of their programs on the of poor Black is also to voting are to vote and on Although not scholars believe that poor voters support Lula based on retrospective or that Lula in the were also low-income In contrast, scholars have that are not low-income are more and The also that voters demonstrate a political ideology, they are are scholars who have In this is to some of the same such as equality, as is little of whether a low-income voter demonstrate both retrospective voting and an of principles associated with based in Black that Afro-Brazilian including poor Afro-Brazilian of equality Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries are an of because they for an of the in and to support of presidential and their political presidential support and Bolsa Família voters the of and as they focus on voters or petismo of political not or the of with and to that for the of and of little to Afro-Brazilian social welfare of the Worker’s Party and Lula or the and they when their presidential the Worker’s Party was during the in from political received it is that Auxílio Brasil voters believe that the or with the the the and by beneficiaries to their support of the Worker’s Party and their for voting for Lula in the 2022 presidential they demonstrate both petismo and of and are key to social welfare beneficiaries political In this research on Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries, a Black to poor Afro-Brazilian as the of Black the of they of and and a such as work to by lulismo and petismo and new questions they not debates lulismo and political party as they not support political they generally the Worker’s Party presidential when Lula and Rousseff for During Lula and Dilma Rousseff most Afro-Brazilians supported the president. of the on a or voting as a racial that Afro-Brazilians have not as a racial were some to vote racial have led to a vote based on and Silva research that when with a of voters in Brazil their vote racial when with a of and Brazilians a for voting for a from their racial were to more to support of the Afro-Brazilians supported Lula in based on votes for the second of the 2018 presidential the of and that percent of Afro-Brazilians to vote for Bolsonaro, only percent to vote for the Worker’s Party candidate, won in the Afro-Brazilian with percent of the vote compared to Bolsonaro’s Afro-Brazilians are supported and political In the second of the 2022 presidential on votes for the second a that percent of for to vote for Lula percent to vote for Bolsonaro, and that percent of for to vote for Lula percent to vote for In contrast, percent of to vote for Bolsonaro, percent to vote for that Afro-Brazilians and Lula, their voter support was and and and the of support for Lula or Worker’s Party In the 2018 presidential a of monthly for have that social welfare beneficiaries are more to support presidential these that Afro-Brazilians generally Worker’s Party In Afro-Brazilians in the to support Worker’s Party that this on Afro-Brazilian in the of support for Lula in the 2022 presidential it was not clear support due to political or the of the petismo was and was of the to petismo was Dilma time in and to petismo was when Lula was after he was a in the during the 2018 presidential and he was as his was viewed as the political of the of the of Lula, and the of Bolsonaro, and The debate and party during the of the of term and The debate is to this as this research questions whether voters with the Worker’s Party In and to in their political is that voters of have political scholars such as Franco and and have that the is scholars such as and who the twelve that of voters with the Worker’s Party and of voters with the Party as a political party more to the making it more did not this most that petismo the was whether in 2022, Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries demonstrate associated with petismo or research the petismo and lulismo as in known for of Lula support in work Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries to vote for also and they supported the Worker’s Party. and of low-income Afro-Brazilian both in the and these of equality and In this it is that Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries have these principles and have associated them with the Worker’s Party as a political or have associated Lula with these principles because of his past support of policies that these whether petismo and lulismo Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries, on in research was supported by a that to research of research in a of three that could with people who had in in the state of voters are more voters in of the to support Worker’s Party and have research for who that they could in from their to in and on Itaparica The questions of to political of Bolsa Família and Auxílio political party and vote research on with Afro-Brazilian in and on Itaparica Itaparica Island, from the of a of a from a of and research in them that the was and The and a research a student to and in these the research during the COVID-19 pandemic, of the and both during the in in and in an a for of such as that was a and for some to the was by a and the of in an of a were the of for their from to of from to in both were with the on Itaparica the in of from to two monthly percent had a family of to monthly percent had family and percent had a family of to two monthly family including Auxílio Brasil were percent on Itaparica in to the of and in 2022, the of in was monthly family demonstrate the of these not include Auxílio Brasil of such as and with the monthly they or was an for were self-identified as a term by Black and scholars that the and from were more to as as were from Itaparica a of to with and from Itaparica Island, percent had and percent had from percent had and had The of Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries in this was of Brazil’s as from from Itaparica participated in such as in such as an and a like or these that in both the were as the was under also that Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries in these to and are in an as their not including Auxílio Brasil are those who as or more a of as Although not believe this is to Brazil as a as it was in in the does the of and a in the of low-income Afro-Brazilian also demonstrate poor Afro-Brazilian their voter support and political on these to whether Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries distinguish between Lula the and the Worker’s Party to he petismo and lulismo are and the they to who they were to vote for in the 2022 presidential was in whether they retrospective evaluations of Lula or they principles that associated with first was that Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries demonstrate did not distinguish between Lula and the Worker’s Party. and in their work that lulismo was a more form of petismo and that petismo as it is associated with political in such as for those in the is with poor voters who are often viewed as with charismatic and being believe that these voters have second was that Auxílio Brasil Afro-Brazilian beneficiaries demonstrate Beyond retrospective in voters Lula’s past programs and to vote for in 2022 based on these Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries Lula as being on the of the poor and to during the of the family the and to family who was also some and this party to at the Regarding could as people after to people to to self-identified woman with a who on Itaparica Brasil beneficiaries support the Worker’s Party for that social The and a of the supported the Worker’s Party due to and that had the to a also that the Worker’s Party to In this the of that Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries In that these voters principles of equality and the in to the them to a political the Worker’s Party or Lula, the and did not the In to the the political party they most percent of that they most to the Worker’s Party or to were to a to their support for the political party they from to who that they most to the Worker’s Party their support of the party as an of from to percent of or that they to the Worker’s percent of the Worker’s a their of Although the to a political some was for to Lula or to both the Worker’s Party and Lula when their to the In percent the both the Worker’s Party and Lula or Lula In these they support of the Worker’s Party. The they also equality and to they most to the political party they percent of three that with the political of the Worker’s Party or with policies implemented under the are more to and The three were equality, or programs such as Bolsa a program that for low-income university and support of poor Black percent of equality, or more percent of and percent of that the party or Lula or poor the most the of these such as more to a university the that scholars not low-income voters with some of the in the an of the of equality as being a of the Worker’s Party. that when Afro-Brazilian in including for they and a of Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries equality and due to some of the social policies supported by the Worker’s they equality and both of also the to the poor and to Black they programs that the party had considering the of scholarly of poor voters these some equality and the to is in with and on social welfare beneficiaries who a of and who the of percent of with the Worker’s were because of the of Although that the Worker’s Party was to self-identified woman who with a and with a to think the more equality, In this the Worker’s Party was to equality for the of being as with Morena who on Itaparica who is in a and a monthly family of Lula’s things were Black had value…and people don’t think like is more the Worker’s to for and poor woman who school and had a monthly family and is who in when people like had like were with that had to a with this percent of that the Worker’s programs have led to a more or at to in people had more to and political of was in the of a from Itaparica with an that the Worker’s Party out for the poor and that under the Worker’s voters were to the minister of he does not ensure for the party that most after the poor was during the in Brazil that were to some don’t have had to a in the children had the to and the to a children had the to minister of was that is not for not for the He not who the in in Brazil. During this the had the to had a a of a had the to at it that who after the who who are don’t have the to don’t have the to to the people are of because of the this the Worker’s Party that had the to and are that the Worker’s Party and woman from Itaparica with a school Bolsa Família was to the Lula, Lula a had Bolsa Família for a things for with from Bolsa the a this the Worker’s Party and Lula were that the party supported a program that to provide for woman who with a in and had a school because of Lula the most people with Bolsa Família that people could have an additional percent of their with the Worker’s because of their to Black or poor Lula with Bolsonaro, that the did not like Black or poor on Itaparica who school and had only is for does not like Black people or the and Lula have this for Lula’s low-income voters is in this as the on petismo racial this clearly that Lula Black people and that does Lula as a political party an of petismo that is to middle-class and is of petismo Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries, as percent of them that the political party equality and and these principles the of Black and poor to the Worker’s and their they an that the party was to Some of these viewed Lula and the party petismo was not from Some were in retrospective evaluations of policies and were with these social programs. the to low-income In it is to that some Black are and of petismo make Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries the focus and should a the who were and who the Lula and in the 2022 presidential who vote Lula, not vote for candidate, was and not vote for did not vote was not the they vote for Lula, that three Lula’s for the retrospective evaluations of Lula, and an the most were and for Lula, they did not demonstrate support due to or an for his personality or scholars who low-income voters with of these an that a president should and policies in the of and poor scholars who have that low-income voters based their voting on retrospective evaluations of the president, also percent of the in this retrospective that Lula was a president in the and supported new these retrospective evaluations were in those who Lula as a president or those who policies under his Itaparica who had school and had a monthly family of of the like like his like his think he a to who were were a of people and after these people had the of a could a and on the work Lula in office, previously who during Lula’s as they were to and in some such as a also the work of his political In this both lulismo and a retrospective in that Lula was a president. woman with who school and on Itaparica vote think a his first term, he was a president. think he also a woman who with in and a monthly to vote for Lula because a woman who with and school with a monthly of have for he a of Lula based on the of his on their or social they the that to to public such as increased to and of In of those with retrospective policies or Lula the poor by or those or percent these or in that Lula poor who did not of such as Lula to and that he his is with Black not that these self-identified as Black as Afro-Brazilian and in the including Brazil, that these have an that the of as a the of the scholars have Lula’s voter during his second term a of low-income voters in his first this to middle-class voters who for during his first term their of the to voting for Lula, they vote for Lula because of his to the Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries that Lula was of the poor and that this to an in their woman who as and and on Itaparica vote for Lula because everything for poor people from the woman from with a and a vote for Lula, Lula, a he he a of vote is for and vote for his to the poor and to vote for in 2022, their support did not woman from Itaparica vote for vote for Lula because with the with the he he was the president who the the vote for with the things people Lula was not of this that he had like the Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries, was not was with the of poor that on Afro-Brazilian the of to have a more of the voting of low-income voting for Lula as an percent of the they vote for Lula because of Bolsonaro’s poor performance in dark-skinned, self-identified woman from with three children and school with a monthly vote for Lula, because in the he was a president who the poor a and things with Lula were a and a people to have a to have a it is are not to are to because are the of is also Lula with woman from with an school and a monthly to vote for Lula because Lula is Lula a to the from Jair does not from who school and a monthly of the between Lula and Bolsonaro, vote for Lula because more does not have vote Lula as a more was known for his racist, sexist, and homophobic In this his public was in to who when he had of the highest of at the During his Lula a of including a an Afro-Brazilian an Afro-Brazilian and an In this Lula is the of that Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries demonstrate In of Bolsonaro’s of Auxílio of the they vote for did not their of to their for voting for they such as and that they believe low-income Brazilians from when Lula and the Worker’s Party were in the of and that is not often in the on also that Afro-Brazilian Auxilio Brasil voters an to their under on the that and their that a for low-income voters does not on Afro-Brazilian beneficiaries in the in in of is an to in the an of petismo and The of research is that it allows an of their support of or political was during the COVID-19 pandemic, and were such as most it is due to the is not to Brazil, it is a in that it on Afro-Brazilian who constitute a of social welfare program that these both petismo and the Worker’s Party as the political party they were and they it associated the Worker’s Party and policies with principles of In some Lula as their political and some viewed Lula and the Worker’s Party as In this for Lula political of the such as equality, and state support of policies that are to to more and for poor and Black is that some that the of Black people were and under a Worker’s Party political not include racial in their of the of of petismo include a to equality, the term also a focus on those who are and are Afro-Brazilian social welfare beneficiaries time meeting the of and their they have the to in of are to middle-class these a of and that should also as political as their them in is associated with poor who are viewed as voters to these that Afro-Brazilian Auxílio Brasil beneficiaries not their vote on Lula’s or The and on did not have a on in his past scholars believe is key to In Lula’s performance in terms of and not Although the were of the that more low-income Brazilians were to and in some some were and to believe that Lula had in that some Lula voters are of they believe it is for the president to of that they should for poor not only the The in this also a Lula vote as an vote, and they the two In this in 2022, lulismo principles of equality, retrospective evaluations of Lula based on the and and an from and questions that a of to the and whether believe the of have the concepts lulismo and petismo new of these like to the of the of Black The also like to and of the at the of for their when this was The also like to for