Two Books on Politics in Brazil

I've just finished two books whose topics dovetail considerably, and I thought I would offer some comments on them to any considering reading them. The first is Brazilian Politics by Alfred P. Montero; the second, Lula and the Workers Party in Brazil by Sue Branford and Bernardo Kucinski.
Montero writes and organizes Brazilian Politics like an introductory textbook, and while the text does employ a few advanced concepts of comparative politics, for the most part, it is one. Overarching the text is Montero's theme of "democracy without....", which he develops in chapters about the political structure, electoral system, economic inequality, civil society and foreign policy. Chapter two is a shoddy historical overview from the colonial period to the present, which doesn't amount to much more than 20 pages, while an introductory and concluding chapter about Lula and the future of Brazilian democracy sandwich the text together.
To be quite blunt, Montero adopts the liberal-lite position which supports and reinforces the capitalist system while calling for some dampening of its gravest inequalities (after all, Brazil is one of, if not the most inegalitarian country in the world). As a result he measures the state of Brazilian democracy (and even uses the imperialist term 'democratic consolidation' a number of times) against the extent to which it has institutionalized the liberal democratic political form. This approach is all too common in comparative politics, which, even if not imposing a specifically U.S.-style teleology, almost always insists that stability [for capital accumulation] is a necessary condition for admittance in the "advanced" club of nations. To be fair, Montero does do a good job of synthesizing some of the main currents in the realm of Brazilian politics in a single (and fairly compact at ~150pgs) document, but his over-reliance on a few particular sources for the bulk of the book (namely Scott Mainwaring) brings this synthesis into question. If there is any real strength in Brazilian Politics, it is Montero's ability to take a variety of diverse streams (economic indicators, foreign policy issues, and concepts in comparative politics) and integrate them into a consistent, and fairly accessible, narrative that appears to be distinctly his. Even this, however, might not hold up under closer scrutiny.
Lula and the Workers Party in Brazil, on the other hand, is quite a different book. It too employs thematic chapters - an assessment of the first two years of the Lula administration, an overview of the rise of the Workers Party, a critique of the legacy of Fernando Henrique Cardoso, and an examination of the Participatory Budgeting experiment in Porto Alegre - but it does so in a way that brings out depth and substance. I've been pleasantly surprised with books by journalists on Latin America recently, mostly by their ability to get great interviews and primary sources and compile them in a single text, and this book adds to that surprise. Branford, a former BBC and Economist reporter, and Kucinsky, an advisor to Lula, gather fairly extensive interviews with party notables (including an exclusive with Lula himself) and synthesize them utilizing a 'critical postmodern' framework that both supports and critiques the Workers Party (see Boaventura dos Santos 1998 "Oppositional Postmodernism and Globalizations" Law and Social Inquiry 23:1). Unlike Montero, the two authors are able to expand on simple one-liners like "the workers party is the most disciplined party in Latin America" by combining evidence into an easy-to-read narrative. At times, the overall flow of the book appears disrupted and disjointed, especially since each chapter is credited as written by one of the two authors (with the final chapter on Porto Alegre written by Hilary Wainwright), but each chapter is more than capable of standing alone.
In terms of content, Lula and the Workers Party in Brazil spends a little too much time discussing peripheral topics to the Workers Party, choosing not to cover some important issues such as the future of party leadership, or expanding on topics only superficially addressed such as the party structure and regulatory framework or the experience of the party in more concrete examples (i.e.: particular municipalities, states). However, many of these issues are deftly side-stepped by pointing to other books. Perhaps the biggest fault of the text is the title, which I think claims too much. A little editing and creative thought might produce a more appropriately labelled package. Neverthless, the text deserves attention for those interested in an accessible and enjoyable treatment of the PT and issues relevant to its formation, existence and future navigation.
I would recommend both books, mostly because I believe in the importance of looking at a wide range of sources, left or right, good or bad. In a way, it was appropriate to read Montero's book first, since Branford and Kucinski's book worked to fill in alot of gaps and supplement unsupported statements with interesting quotes. Indeed, some of the research in Lula and the Workers Party in Brazil even presents some challenges to Montero's book by providing alternative evidence and explanation. Take a look at either, or both, and tell me what you think!