Social Movement Consolidation and Strategic Shifts: The Brazilian Landless Movement during the Lula and Dilma Administrations. (July 2020)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Pahnke, Anthony
• Other Names: Munck Ronaldo guest-editor.; Sankey Kyla guest-editor.
• Is Part Of: Latin American perspectives. Volume 47:Number 4(2020:Jul.)
• Page Start: 206
• Page End: 222
• Publication Date: 2020-07
• Subjects: Landless Movement -- Brazil -- Workers' Party -- Education -- Agroecology; Latin America -- Economic policy -- Periodicals; Latin America -- Politics and government -- Periodicals; Latin America -- Economic conditions -- Periodicals; Latin America -- Social conditions -- Periodicals; 320.98
• DOI: 10.1177/0094582X20918590
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0094-582X

Abstract

During the center-left Partido dos Trabalhadores (Workers' Party—PT) governments of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2002–2010) and Dilma Rousseff (2011–2016), the Brazilian Landless Movement took advantage of particular governmental changes—increased access to education, improved small-farmer support programs, and expanded agrarian reform development policies—to strengthen its leadership and organization. Instead of expanding, the movement turned inward to address internal weaknesses. It benefited from the PT's ambiguous position with respect to the politics of agrarian reform. Since each administration dedicated considerable resources to public policies that the movement favored, neither government engaged in significant land redistribution. Durante los gobiernos de Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (2002–2010) y Dilma Rousseff (2011–2016), ambos pertenecientes al centro-izquierdista Partido dos Trabalhadores (PT), el Movimiento Brasileño Sin Tierra aprovechó cambios gubernamentales particulares, como mejores programas de apoyo a los pequeños agricultores, mejor acceso a la educación y políticas ampliadas para el desarrollo de reformas agrarias, para fortalecer su liderazgo y organización. En lugar de expandirse, el movimiento se tornó hacia sí mismo para abordar debilidades internas. Se benefició de la posición ambigua del PT con respecto a las políticas de reforma agraria. Y dado que ambas administraciones dedicaron considerables recursos a políticas públicas favorecidas por el movimiento, ninguno se abocó a supervisar una redistribución significativa de la tierra.