Brazil’s Lula announces heicher welfare payments and free wecht-loss jabs afore the election

Brazil’s president, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, has announced a 15% increase in the kintra’s main cash-transfer scheme for puir families, alang wi free wecht-loss jabs, promptin criticism fae opponents wha say the moves are electoreally motivated juist twa weeks afore the presidential election.

On 4 October, the left-wing incumbent will face the far-richt senator Flávio Bolsonaro, son o the umwhile president Jair Bolsonaro, wha has been gainin grund in recent weeks.

The rise in the monthly payment, fae aboot £98 tae £113, that he announced on Thursday is due tae tak effect on 19 October, juist afore the likely runoff vote on 25 October.

The increase is expectit tae benefit atween 15% and 20% o voters in whit promises tae be ane o the closest ever presidential races in Latin America’s lairgest kintra.

Lula said it wisna reilly an increase, but an adjustment in line wi inflation tae protect the purchasin pouer o the maist vulnerable families, but his opponents hae criticised its timin sae close tae the election.

Flávio Bolsonaro caaed it an act o desperation efter polls shawed him gainin grund – awtho the maist recent survey, released on Thursday nicht, still shawed Lula numerically aheid despite the technical tie. The senator addit that Lula wis tryin tae buy the votes o the puir.

Created in 2003 durin his first term as president, the programme, cried Bolsa Família, wis a flagship cash-transfer policy that helped lift millions o families oot o poverty durin his first twa terms.

Currently, families wi an income o up tae £32 per person are eligible, coverin aboot 50 million fowk, or roughly 27 million o votin age.

The programme has lang been fiercely criticised by richt-wing politicians, includin by Jair Bolsonaro, awtho he kept it in place durin his presidency.

On the eve o the 2022 election, Bolsonaro announced a 50% increase in the monthly payment, promptin Lula’s campaign tae file a case wi the electoral court allegin abuse o political pouer and electoral use o the state machinery.

The similarities hae sparkit a debate atween thae wha say Lula is daein the same thing Bolsonaro did fower year syne, and ithers wha argue that the twa cases are different.

The journalist Miriam Leitão wrote for O Globo that awtho baith Bolsonaro and Lula made the adjustments oot o electoral interest, the current incumbent’s increase is in fact limitit tae inflation ower the past fower year, durin which there had been nae adjustment.

She also notit that Bolsonaro’s increase had an expiry date – precisely at the end o the electoral period – while Lula’s is permanent.

Victor Escobar, a researcher at the Laboratory o Parties, Elections and Comparative Politics, agreed. He said that awtho Lula, like his predecessor, is also bein criticised for unveilin a package o benefits on the eve o the election – includin a promise tae distribute wecht-loss jabs free o chairge through the public health system – Bolsonaro’s measures were even mair irresponsible fae a budgetary point o view.

In addition tae increasin benefits for puir families, Bolsonaro introduced temporary monthly payments o up tae £727 for twa groups that broadly formit part o his support base, taxi drivers and truck drivers, alang wi a series o ither social benefits whose projectit impact on the budget wis sae lairge that critics dubbed them the kamikaze package.

Escobar acknowledgit that Lula’s intention wis also electoral, but said that, as lang as the measures comply wi the law, it is something entirely expectit whan we are talkin aboot an incumbent runnin for re-election, wha will try tae use the legal mechanisms available tae improve their votin numbers.

Some electoral law experts hae said that an inflation adjustment is no, in principle, prohibitit, but anither far-richt candidate, the influencer Renan Santos, filed a case wi the electoral court seekin tae suspend the increase until the president-elect taks office. Awtho critical o the measure, Flávio Bolsonaro has no done the same, reportitly because o concern aboot the impact sic a move cud hae amang voters wha benefit fae the programme.