Brazilian WI: Brizola supports Collor's impeachment from the get go?

[Vinization]

One of the Brazilian left's main standard bearers during the second half of the 20th century, Leonel Brizola saw his prestige slowly fade after the end of the 1964-85 dictatorship, thanks to the rise of Lula and the Workers' Party as a political force. While his decline as a national figure was sadly assured the moment he failed to get into the second round of the 1989 presidential election, Brizola made a critical mistake that sped up this process significantly: he was, at first, against Fernando Collor's impeachment, only coming around when it was far too late to make a difference.

His party, PDT, suffered greatly in the 1992 municipal elections as a result, losing control of Rio de Janeiro: the PDT candidate, Cidinha Campos, finished the race in third place despite leading the polls at the beginning of the campaign. This weakened Brizola's position as governor of RJ (he was in his second, non consecutive term, and was beset by crises at every turn) even further, and PDT lost control of the state altogether in the 1994 gubernatorial election.

So what if he didn't oppose Collor's impeachment before eventually supporting it, but rather joined the chorus of voices calling for it from the get go? Assuming this is enough to help PDT keep control of Rio city in the 1992 mayoral election, how does this affect RJ state politics going forward? Could they win the 1994 election for governor, and thus ensure the various programs Brizola enacted during his term (especially the ones regarding public education) aren't shut down like they were under Marcello Alencar?

Lastly, would Brizola still be Lula's running mate in the 1998 presidential election if he was more relevant/powerful, or would he try to go solo yet again?

 

[Guilherme Loureiro]

I think he still loses Rio(both city and state); Brizola's image in Rio was significantly tarnished after his second term as government(due to his own decisions and Rede Globo's unwavering campaign against him both). Of course, his support of Collor since getting elected as State Governor(most likely a cynical attempt to get more funding for the state - which partially succeeded) didn't help, but once his support in Rio declined, it was impossible for the excessively Rio de Janeiro-centered PDT to stay relevant. His penchant for expelling every single popular PDT figure that showed any sign of independence also didn't help(granted, I doubt César Maia and Anthony Garotinho would stay loyal - but Marcello Alencar?).

Brizola's programs would not survive him , no matter what; Rio de Janeiro was bankrupt, and would stay so until the oil boom of the late 1990s-early 2000s, brought in by the end of Petrobras monopoly on oil exploration, and his programs would be the first on the chopping block to free resources.

Assuming Brizola stays relevant/popular in spite of what I said, he would have tried to go for it solo again.

 

[Vinization]

I think he still loses Rio(both city and state); Brizola's image in Rio was significantly tarnished after his second term as government(due to his own decisions and Rede Globo's unwavering campaign against him both). Of course, his support of Collor since getting elected as State Governor(most likely a cynical attempt to get more funding for the state - which partially succeeded) didn't help, but once his support in Rio declined, it was impossible for the excessively Rio de Janeiro-centered PDT to stay relevant. His penchant for expelling every single popular PDT figure that showed any sign of independence also didn't help(granted, I doubt César Maia and Anthony Garotinho would stay loyal - but Marcello Alencar?).

Brizola's programs would not survive him , no matter what; Rio de Janeiro was bankrupt, and would stay so until the oil boom of the late 1990s-early 2000s, brought in by the end of Petrobras monopoly on oil exploration, and his programs would be the first on the chopping block to free resources.

Assuming Brizola stays relevant/popular in spite of what I said, he would have tried to go for it solo again.

I knew there was a crime wave or at least the perception of one, but I didn't know state finances were in a bad shape. Why was that the case, low oil prices?

 

[Guilherme Loureiro]

I knew there was a crime wave or at least the perception of one, but I didn't know state finances were in a bad shape. Why was that the case, low oil prices?

Oil prices didn't have much to do with it. It was a confluence of many factors:

- The traditional agricultural sector in Rio de Janeiro State had been dying for some time;
- The cannibalization of Rio de Janeiro City(and the State, to a lesser extent) industry, to São Paulo's benefit(Rio's curse: São Paulo and Rio de Janeiro are too close for coexist; whomever gets ahead will tend to empty the other of political and economic weight);
- The loss of capital status, as well as the funding that came with it - in conjunction with the deindustrialization of Rio, this meant that Rio de Janeiro became an administrative city without anything to administer(and nothing else);
- Fusion of the Guanabara and Rio de Janeiro states, that is, an ailing city being fused with a poor state;
- Loss of federal funding from 1983 on; while Brizolists like to harp on this as an excuse for Brizola's... problems during his first term, I don't think it tells the whole story - in 1983, Brazil was in recession(a really bad one), and while things got better in 1984, hyperinflation was coming, and would trash the whole country - just look at how bad things were during Moreira Franco's term;
- Brizola's measures to get more income - raising taxes across the board - drove away business(as an example, Brizola levied additional taxes on ships arriving at the Rio de Janeiro harbour, which drove down the number of ships arriving there).

As for the crime wave, it was real, even though what came after was worse - and Brizola wasn't up to it, no matter which reasons for his actions you ascribe him.