Visualization of Roll Call Data for SupportingAnalyses of Political Profiles

Complementary Material: Case StudySIBGRAPI paper ID: 76

I. CASE STUDY: PARTY COHESIVENESS OVER TIME

To illustrate how CivisAnalysis 2.0 can be used in practice,we conducted an informal case study analyzing party cohe-siveness over time. Our analysis covered each presidential termincluded in our data and was based on each legislature’s t-SNEscatterplot visualization and chamber of deputies compositioninfographic. The analysis was also complemented by historicalinformation that helps contextualize and understand what isbeing seen.

A. Collor (PRN) – 1990-1992

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PFL (76), PL (20),PTB (27), PDS (46), PP (27), PDC (20), PMDB (104), PSDB(41), PDT (44), PT (35)

The first election after the military period resulted in a veryfragmented parliament and a president, Fernando Collor deMello, from a very minor party, PRN, which had only fourseats in the chamber of deputies. The two largest parties werethe democratic reinventions of the two parties that existed dur-ing the dictatorship: the rightwing PFL (Liberal Front Party),which emerged from the conservative, pro-regime ARENA,and the PMDB (Brazilian Democratic Movement Party), arebranding of opposition party MDB (Democratic MovementParty), which served as an umbrella for ideologies covering theentire political spectrum. Other sizable parties include right-leaning ARENA offshoots PDS (Social Democratic Party), PP(Progressive Party), and PDC (Christian Democratic Party),the social-liberal PL (Liberal Party), the centrist MDB spin-off PSDB (Party of the Brazilian Social Democracy) as wellas the centrist PTB (Brazilian Labor Party) and the leftwingPDT (Democratic Labor Party) and PT (Workers’ Party).

In CivisAnalysis 2.0 (Figure 1), we can see that somedeputies form well-defined clusters, revealing the cohesivenessof their parties in terms of how similarly deputies voted.From this, we can see that PDT, PSDB, PT, and PMDBwere very cohesive in this first legislature of Brazil’s newdemocracy. PFL was slightly less cohesive and most of theother parties were a lot less so while not straying too far fromthe PFL’s positions (their deputies are spread over a large areaoverlapping PFL’s, but they remain far from the other majorparties).

B. Itamar (PMDB) – 1992-1995

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PPR (60), PFL (85),PTB (29), PP (46), PMDB (101), PSDB (51), PDT (32), PT

(36)1992 was a turbulent year in Brazilian politics, culminating

in the impeachment of president Collor following a corruptionscandal. Vice-president Itamar Franco (PMDB) took over thepresidency amidst an economic crisis (with annual inflationat over 1000%) and built a government based on a broadcoalition. The political and economic turmoil deeply affectedthe behavior and voting patterns of the deputies, as canbe clearly seen in CivisAnalysis 2.0 (Figure 2). Althoughleftwing PDT and PT managed to maintain party unity, centristPSDB became considerably less cohesive, and the previouslyclose-knit PMDB and the somewhat cohesive PFL becamecompletely loose. Also notable were the growth of PSDB,which gained 10 seats, and the 1993 incorporation of thePDS and the PDC into the previously tiny PPR (ProgressiveReformist Party), which grew from 14 to 66 deputies andbehaved in a mostly united way.

C. FHC (PSDB) – 1995-1999

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PFL (110), PTB (25),PSDB (91), PPB (79), PMDB (86), PDT (24), PT (53)

The success of Fernando Henrique Cardoso’s (PSDB) termas finance minister under president Itamar Franco brought himto the presidency and restored political and economic order,with most of the major parties’ deputies voting in cohesivepatterns (Figure 3). The exception to the rule was the PMDB,whose deputies divided into smaller clusters. Notable changesinclude the shrinking of the PMDB and the growth of the PFL(which became the largest party in the chamber of deputies),the PSDB (which almost doubled in size), and the PT. Alsonotable was the fusion of the PP and the PPR into the PPB(Brazilian Progressive Party), which formed a mostly cohesivebloc of deputies.

D. FHC (PSDB) – 1999-2003

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PPB (50), PFL (96),PSDB (95), PMDB (86), PTB (35), PL (23), PT (63)

Changes in voting patterns during president Fernando Hen-rique Cardoso’s second term were not too drastic (Figure 4).The PFL and the PSDB behaved almost like a single party,with the latter being more cohesive. The PMDB became moreunited that it was in the previous term, but many of its deputiesstill did not vote together. Also notable were the continuedgrowth of the PT and the considerable decreases in size inboth the PPB and the PFL, which lost its place as largest

Fig. 1. Fernando Collor de Mello (PRN) – 1990-1992

Fig. 2. Itamar Franco (PMDB) – 1992-1995

Fig. 3. Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB) – 1995-1999

Fig. 4. Fernando Henrique Cardoso (PSDB) – 1999-2003

party in the chamber of deputies to the PSDB. The PDT alsocontinued on the downward trend that took it from 44 deputiesin the Collor government to only 16 in Fernando Henrique’ssecond term. The PTB grew a little in size but remained veryloose. The PPB, in turn, remained mostly the same in bothsize and cohesiveness.

E. Lula (PT) – 2003-2007

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PT (89), PSB (28),PTB (46), PL (36), PMDB (76), PP (51), PDT (20), PFL (59),PSDB (53)

The election of Lula (PT) followed another economicallyturbulent period that resulted in the growth of leftwing andpopulist parties, such as the PT (now the largest party inthe chamber of deputies), the PSB, the PTB, and the PDTand the considerable shrinking of the PFL and the PSDB,which became the only substantive opposition parties, formingtwo similar and close-knit opposition blocs (Figure 5). Of theremaining parties of significant size, the PT was the only onewhose voting behavior was very cohesive, although both thePL and the PTB had sizable cohesive clusters along with manydeputies that voted their own way. Also notable is the changein the PPB, which was renamed PP and became a lot lesscohesive despite retaining the same size.

F. Lula (PT) – 2007-2011

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PT (83), PTB (20),PDT (24), PR (46), PMDB (85), PSB (27), PP (41), DEM(50), PSDB (59)

Despite a vote-buying scandal that threatened to bring downLula’s (PT) government during his first term in office, aneconomic boom led to his reelection and to very high approvalratings. This was reflected in the voting behavior of deputiesand can be very clearly seen in CivisAnalysis 2.0 (Figure 6):the opposition, made up mostly of the PSDB and the DEM(Democrats—a rebranded PFL), forms a small and cohesivebut completely isolated bloc. All other parties are bundledtogether, although roughly overlapping and cohesive clusterscan still be seen. It is interesting to note that the PT is stillespecially cohesive, but there is now a breakaway cluster thatis very far from the main “body” of the party. Closer to thePT’s main clusters are the PDT and about half of the PSB.After years of being very loose, the PMDB is again verycohesive. Slightly less so are the PP and the PR (Party of theRepublic), a new party resulting from the fusion of the PL andthe tiny PRONA (Party of the Reconstruction of the NationalOrder). Also notable during this period was the beginning ofthe proliferation of very small parties after the Supreme Courtstruck down an electoral threshold as unconstitutional.

G. Dilma (PT) – 2011-2015

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PT (91), PP (36), PSB(30), PMDB (74), PR (32), SDD (22), PSD (37), DEM (27),PSDB (44)

Lula’s high approval ratings and the continued economicgrowth led to the election of his successor, Dilma Rousseff

(PT), and the further erosion of the opposition. However,being less skilled as a negotiator than her predecessor andfacing harsher economic conditions and a growing number ofparties, Dilma had more difficulty in maintaining cohesivenessbetween the parties that made up her ample and mostlyideology-less coalition (Figure 7). The two main oppositionparties, PSDB and DEM, remained as two isolated and verycohesive clusters. DEM, however, lost about half its deputiesto offshoot PSD (Social Democratic Party), a roughly cohe-sive, sizable group (37 deputies) that joined the governmentcoalition. Among Dilma’s supporters, the largest and mostcohesive group is still the PT. The PMDB is still second inthe alliance and is also cohesive, although not very tightlyso. Other considerable government allies include the smallerbut reasonably cohesive PR and the much looser PSB and PP.Traditional ally PDT shrunk to 17 deputies but remained veryclose-knit. Also notable is the emergence of the Solidarity,a reasonably-sized (22 deputies) but very in-cohesive party.A noteworthy political event that might have shaped votingpatterns during this period were mass protests held in 2013that reflected a growing but still very vague dissatisfaction ofthe population with the political class.

H. Dilma (PT) – 2015-2016

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): DEM (29), PSDB(51), PSB (31), PP (48), PSD (36), PMDB (67), PRB (22),PR (38), PDT (20), PT (57)

Dilma’s (PT) reelection followed a very hotly contestedelection and a controversial campaign, in terms of both fundingand method. Facing an unprecedented economic crisis, Dilmadid the opposite of what she promised during the campaign.What’s more, the PT found itself at the center of a majorcorruption scandal (uncovered by the now famous OperationCar Wash, which would soon engulf the two other largerparties as well—the PMDB and the PSDB). Dilma and thePT’s newfound unpopularity and her difficulty in dealing withcongress resulted in a breakdown of her coalition, which, alongwith fiscal mismanagement by her government, culminated inher impeachment and removal from office after a series oflarge-scale protests all over the country. Throughout this veryturbulent period, the PT not only lost several of its major allies,such as the PSB and the PMDB, but it also found itself alittle less cohesive than it used to be. Of the two remaininglarger parties, the PSDB managed to stay slightly cohesive;the PMDB imploded, with its deputies rebelling against thegovernment (theoretically their ally, as they hold the vice-presidency) and voting all over the political space (Figure 8).DEM and PSB (which moved to the opposition during theelection) managed to stay reasonably cohesive, but the same isnot true for almost all other medium parties (the PDT being anotable exception). Also worth noting is the continued growthin the number of parties.

Fig. 5. Luıs Inacio Lula da Silva (PT) – 2003-2007

Fig. 6. Luıs Inacio Lula da Silva (PT) – 2007-2011

Fig. 7. Dilma Rousseff (PT) – 2011-2015

Fig. 8. Dilma Rousseff (PT) – 2015-2016

Fig. 9. Michel Temer (PMDB) – 2016-2017

I. Temer (PMDB) – 2016-20171

Main parties (at least 20 deputies): PMDB (67), PRB(21), PSDB (51), DEM (27), PP (47), PSD (34), PR (40),PSB (33), PDT (20), PT (58)

With Michel Temer (PMDB), who was vice-president underDilma, the PMDB found itself again in the presidency afteran impeachment. Once in power, Temer managed to form abroad and loose coalition including the PSDB, DEM, and mostof the PT’s old allies (with the notable exception of the mostleftwing parties, which stuck with the PT). Temer was able tobreak the parliamentary gridlock of Dilma’ second term, andalso put together a new team, trying to get the economy backon track. However, along with prominent cabinet membersand influential leaders of both the PMDB and the PSDB, hesoon found himself engulfed by corruption accusations andinvestigations partly related to the Car Wash scandal, erodinghis already feeble popularity and political capital. The effectof these events on party cohesiveness can be clearly seen inthe voting patterns: the only significant party that managed toremain reasonably cohesive was the PT — in the visualization,deputies of all other parties are scattered all over the place(Figure 9).

1His term ends in 2019