Lula has been a major figure (1) of the Brazilian politics (2) in the last 30 years. In the (3) beginning of the eighties, he was at the front of several strike movements (4) what made him a well-known person, somewhat like Lech Walesa in Poland. In 1986, he was elected (5) for the Parliament. After this, he was a candidate in all presidential elections. After failing in 1989, 1993 and 1997, he finally was elected president in 2001 and now (6) he is trying to be re-elected for a new four-year mandate. In my opinion, there are (7) some reasons why he should not be re-elected.
First, his government was a total failure. He should have (8) set up/put forward policies aimed at creating conditions for Brazil (9) become a more competitive country. His government should have invested massively (10) on education and promoted policies to make Brazil more attractive for foreign investors. Instead, he focused on policies for poor people, which are absolutely necessary, if they were the right ones. However, these policies (11) will have no other effect than perpetuating misery. In reality, his main concern was ensuring (12) votes for himself and his party, and not defining an environment where domestic, as well as foreign companies, could generate wealth.
Secondly, the wave of corruption scandals during his government has clearly shown that the elected representatives completely (13) despised the ethical values that he and his political allies have so strongly defended for decades. In addition, his systematic practice of ignoring any sign of corruption within this government is simply unacceptable. The effects that his denegation of corruption within his government may have on society and in particular on the youngest generation should not be underestimated. His cynical attitude only reinforces the idea that everything is acceptable.
Thirdly, he is (14) someone very limited intellectually. (15) And to make things worse, he is (16) totally megalomaniac. Nothing can be worse than this combination of ignorance and arrogance. His views regarding any subject are extremely superficial, simplistic and outdated. If he was not the president of a country, his speeches would be comical. Hopefully, he will be replaced as soon as possible by someone (17) a more modern understanding of the world.
(1) Correction: Change "of the" to "in" or "of."
(2) Suggestion only: "in" is used and considered acceptable by many people, but if you are discussing "a period of time, "during" is the correct choice of word to use.
(3) Suggestion only: "beginning of the" is acceptable, but "early" is more commonly used.
(4) Correction: Use "What" cannot be used as a conjunction to join clauses or phrases. Use, instead, "which," "that," "who," or "whom."
(5) Correction: Replace "for" with "to."
(6) Suggestion only: Instead of "he is trying to be re-elected," use "is seeking re-election."
(7) Suggestion only: Some persons might accept "some reasons," but "several" or "a few" sound better. However, you can also say, "Some of the reasons included…"
(8) Suggestion only: "Set up" and "put forward" have different meanings. In this case, I would use "established" rather than "set up" as it is nicer and "set up" has a connotation of " assemble."
(9) Correction: Use "for Brazil to become."
(10) Correction: Use "in" instead of "on."
(11) Suggestion only: Instead of " will have no other effect than perpetuating misery," use " will have no effect, except to cause them to be long remembered."
(12) Suggestion only: Insert "that he would have sufficient."
(13) Suggestion only: Use "disregarded" or "ignored" instead of "despised."
(14) Suggestion only: Delete "someone."
(15) Correction: You cannot begin a sentence with "and." It is a conjunction and is used to hold words, phrases, or clauses together. Use "further," "moreover" or "in addition."
(16) Suggestion only: Instead of "totally megalomaniac," use "a complete megalomaniac."
(17) Correction: Replace "with" by "who possess" or "who has." "With" means (or has connotations of) "accompanied by."