By DIOGO FAGUNDES*

Boulos has and will continue to have immense difficulties in his campaign due to the way it has been conducted. If the political line does not change, the risk of not winning is real.

Allow me to make some guesses, as an outside observer, regarding Guilherme Boulos' campaign.

Unlike other municipal campaigns in which I have actively participated (in street work, communication, etc.), even though I was not involved in leadership tasks — such as Fernando Haddad's campaign in 2012, my first political experience — I am not up to date with Guilherme Boulos' campaign, which greatly limits my ability to make a decent analysis. But, as an outside observer, I am somewhat concerned about what I have seen so far.

1.

First, to clear up any confusion: Boulos is not a bad candidate. He was the most competitive candidate the left could have, because despite his high rejection rate, he is already well-known — he made it to the second round in 2020 and was our most voted federal deputy — and he already has the approval and blessing of Lula and Marta Suplicy (who was a great mayor, especially remembered in the outskirts of the city). Proof of this was his performance on Roda Viva: calm, relaxed, without falling into any banana skins and showing great preparation. Creating a candidate from scratch would make the situation much more difficult.

2.

Since the pre-campaign, the candidate's initiatives and statements seem to have been aimed at reducing the high rejection rate. This makes sense, since this is what usually decides the second round.

However, the way this necessary task was internalized and executed by the campaign was not very subtle, it seems to me. The most tedious and common marketing ended up prevailing over the politics, which led to two disastrous side effects:

i) a certain high-flying, “hooray” (“we’re first in the polls!”, this was celebrated on social media while Marçal created a vigorous upward movement), which considered that the candidate could remain passive since he would already be guaranteed a place in the second round. With this passivity, he lost the ability to set the agenda for the elections, which was completely swallowed up by Marçal.

ii) a bland pasteurization of the candidate, now much more similar to the others, a canned product without any major differences. If in 2020, Boulos represented a rebellious and discontented energy – but channeled in a positive way, unlike Marçal –, indignant with the “more of the same”, using his authenticity (the Celtinha as a symbol) and his combative biography, now he sounds like a more common politician.

3.

Another factor weighing against the success of the campaign so far has been a kind of deliberate infantilization of the former leader of the housing movement (something that is not at all silly or childish), who has even become a laughingstock on social media with Sukita's uncle memes. It is a combination of ultra-marketing logic with a certain silly communication style that, for me, marks the worst of what I have seen in the university student movement. It is true that the criticism of “woke identity politics”, in the traditional way it is made, is very reactionary, but it is also necessary to admit that the “official” left has internalized certain quirks typical of the less glorious aspects of the university left. The Brazilian anthem sung in “neutral language” is a maximum caricature of this.

4.

Along with passivity and infantilization, another characteristic so far has been the absence of… brands! Perhaps in order to avoid too many fights — again, thinking about reducing rejection — the decision was made to empty the program, with few captivating proposals capable of creating a strong symbolism (such as Haddad’s “arco do futuro” in 2012, or Dilma’s “muda mais” in 2014). Without strong ideas that channel the electorate’s dissatisfaction into an affirmative and hopeful vision of the future (something that Marçal manages to do, despite the ridiculousness of his proposals, which we see is not a mere “technique”), it is difficult to create a strong cultural and participatory movement. And the left only wins this way: when it manages to create this movement of hope, capable of engaging many people voluntarily.

5.

The fundamental error, therefore, comes from the hackneyed and obvious way in which they interpret the need to reduce rejection. It is necessary to increase rejection, but how? To focus more on meetings in the first round with the financial market (which, by the way, according to the press, seems enthusiastic about Pablo Marçal... To the surprise only of those who bet too much on the reasonableness of our “elites”, despite everything we saw in 2018) and with Secovi than on giving clear signals to his already existing and consolidated base? It is as if Boulos had carried out the “Lulinha peace and love” operation (2003, another country) without any mediation or care, thinking that an abrupt repetition (Lula did this in a long process over many years, maintaining and expanding his social and party base), in an even more marketing-oriented and depoliticized variation, would do the trick. Marcelo Freixo did the same, with the “successful” results that we know.

When the campaign becomes unseasoned, it becomes difficult to gain more intensive voluntary support. And without this engaged, active and confident support, the campaign tends to wither. In the first round, the main task should be to speak clearly to supporters, distributing precise and clear tasks to them, in order to create movement, generate a rising tide, and create a street campaign. Ultimately, when the aim is exclusively to dilute ideology (i.e., to become more boring), the result is not less rejection, but less visibility, prominence and self-confidence. It becomes a fearful campaign that does not inspire people — look at how Marçal is precisely the anti-fear (in fact, the name of one of his quack books), pure confidence! In this way, there is room for other candidates to grow by fulfilling the task that should naturally belong to Boulos: to polarize, to combat, to be firm and serious.

This is the role that Tábata Amaral, the ideological candidate of the neo-PSDB “democratic center,” has been playing in her excellent videos denouncing the Marçal fraud, probably stealing voters from Boulos in the process – we still don’t know what result her videos with tens of millions of views will generate in the polls, but she was trending upward even before that in the FESPSP (São Paulo School of Sociology and Politics Foundation) poll. The large space that Boulos’ campaign gave to Tabata’s promotion, someone who would have little chance of growing, squeezed as she was, already indicates a somewhat lame tactic on the part of the former MTST leader’s campaign.

6.

Ultimately, the left, by underestimating Pablo Marçal, acted in 2024 as it did in 2018. Just like the Bourbons, they learn nothing from History. Those who tried to warn of the danger and the urgency of focusing fire, by all possible means, including legal ones (in which Tabata once again took credit for the initiative), on the unscrupulous coach were labeled as “impressionists” – they were hostages of the niches and bubbles of the networks…—, of not understanding that the “real right” would go for Nunes because it supposedly detests adventurous lumpens (just as Alckmin was stronger than Bolsonaro in 2018 because he had the support of Globo, the big bourgeoisie, etc.), of not seeing that the second round between Nunes and Boulos was already well defined, of not understanding that the Bolsonarist base was loyal to its leader and would not abandon the candidate he nominated – as if Bolsonarism had anything to do ideologically with a guy as openly part of the “system” as Nunes. All these convictions, firm as a nail in the sand, quickly fell apart with Marçal’s meteoric rise. Unfortunately, some still don't seem to have understood until now and prefer to ignore that Marçal is today THE phenomenon of the election, which no one talks about, in the logic of "speak well or speak badly" that is very useful to the extreme right on the networks.

These analysts still haven’t understood the drastic change in the logic of post-Bolsonaro elections: traditional factors, such as television time and a broad range of alliances, are not the most decisive. Do you remember Rodrigo Garcia, in 2022, with his gigantic machine? When they realized that he was not the most viable candidate, his allies focused on their individual campaigns and did not wear themselves out fighting a candidate who would probably become governor – Tarcísio. When will this type of stubbornness, this obsessive attachment to a type of electoral framework that no longer exists, cease among us? Will we continue to listen to these voices of wisdom for how many more elections, disarming us and preventing us from acting in advance and with the urgency needed to face the size of the danger?

7.

Finally, despite signs that the candidacy has woken up to what is at stake, albeit in a confusing way, as it does not clearly prioritize the main enemy, it seems that an attempt was made to re-edit the national logic of 2022 in the campaign, along the lines of “civilization vs. barbarism”, broad unity against fascism, etc. This made the candidate repeat the bet on “love” (“makes the heart”) that characterized both the failed 2018 campaign and the victorious (but suffocating) one in 2022. There are two problems.

The first: Nunes’ poorly approved mayoral election is not associated with Bolsonaro’s vices. Bolsonaro generated a lot of rejection as president by adopting an absurd stance during the pandemic, when he seemed completely indifferent to the plight of the fellow citizens whose lives he was supposed to protect. The vision that consolidated in the minds of a large part of the population was that of an aggressive and dangerous idiot, who encouraged violence in various forms, indifferent even to the drama of the Yanomami genocide or the destruction of the Amazon. This allowed Lula to sound like an empathetic and supportive name, mobilizing anti-Bolsonaro sentiments.

The case of São Paulo is different: it is a city that has been abandoned and left without leadership. People do not reject Nunes because he is a Bolsonaro supporter – especially because he is very shy about this connection, preferring to stay away, and it is no wonder that he is losing this base – but because he is a useless, insignificant person who does not seem to be leading the city in any clear direction. The emotions that should be mobilized against Nunes, first of all, should not be a generic “love” (no one thinks Nunes is a sadistic cartoon villain, as they think about Bolsonaro), but vigor, energy, a firm hand and confidence in an alternative to the same old thing. These are emotions that Marçal mobilizes very well.

The second problem is that Marçal, despite expressing values ​​that deeply resonate with the Bolsonarist base and, in a certain sense, being a hyper-Bolsonarist, is not limited to this. His appeal, which even appeals to the masses, is to be an aggressive anti-system, of course – which implies being anti-communist, anti-PT, since all of this has become, in a certain way, the “system” – but also to deeply dialogue with the desires of the “hard workers”, the self-employed, small business owners who live off the sweat of their labor, the freelancers, young people with no prospect of formal employment, etc. who aim to move up in society. It is the culture of “get by”, of “do it yourself”, transmuted into a powerful symbol to serve as a mobilizing emblem: let’s get rich, let’s become strong and masculine, the sky is the limit for those who make the effort and have the right mindset.

Consider the great focus given to the theme of “entrepreneurial education,” for example, or the blunt denunciation of the favelas (“concentration camps”), which give him a greater “social” appeal compared to traditional Bolsonarism, which is almost always blind to the plight of the poorest. When asked who his greatest enemy was (presumably an electoral opponent), in the interview with CNN, he answers bluntly: misery and poverty. He says he wants to transform our young people into Olympic athletes, compares Brazil’s development negatively to China, and appeals to feelings of desire to build a great city. It is a confident, assertive and forward-looking speech, no matter how megalomaniacal or absurd the proposals may be, and they are.

In light of this, simply appealing to “defend democracy” may sound abstract and unconvincing. In fact, it may give the impression of a clash between the “system” and the outsider, further boosting its appeal. For these reasons, in order to combat Marçal, we need to go beyond resorting to somewhat sterile fantasies (the issue of the democratic struggle against Bolsonaro seemed concrete, but in what sense exactly does Marçal threaten democracy? He doesn’t even defend the military dictatorship, so it’s hard for our communication to be didactic). We need to take a line that clearly demonstrates that, instead of being a kind entrepreneur (he even says he’s not a capitalist because he’s not an exploiter!), he’s a dangerous swindler who lives off deceiving people, and is therefore incapable of finding real solutions for education, health, employment, income, urban transportation, housing, etc., and that Boulos is more committed and has the best ideas on the issues that most affect the daily lives of the inhabitants. To use a Maoist slogan – sorry, I can’t write a political text without paying homage to my references – we must “rely on our own strength”, that is, have more confidence in ourselves, as well as more audacity and boldness (“dare to fight, dare to win”). Perhaps this other one would also apply: the “primacy of internal causes”. There is no point in running away from the real and effective problems faced by the vast majority of São Paulo residents in the name of causes that have little to do with people’s daily lives (such as the fight for democracy against the global far right).

8.

There would be other issues to be discussed, such as the use of artists, intellectuals and “personalities” – which have been little explored so far – and the organization of young people, but let's leave that aside, as I don't feel very capable, with the level of information I have, of being as forceful in my criticism on this point as I was in relation to the others.

I don't want to be defeatist or convey discouragement. Contrary to what many people think — there are people who are even rooting against it, based on resentment, especially in the PT, due to the fact that Boulos has become the biggest name on the left in São Paulo, thanks in large part to the harakiri that the PT committed in 2020 with the disastrous candidacy of Jilmar Tatto and that it has been committing to this day, with the ambiguous position of most of its councilors (to put it mildly...) regarding the Nunes administration — I believe that it is possible to win. However, to be honest, I don't think it is possible with this political line, with the way the campaign has been conducted so far. Either there is a general shake-up and a change of course as soon as possible, or we could have uninspiring results, with a great risk of catastrophe, in line with the icy climate that currently prevails in the city.

(Much of this text contains ideas that were first developed more clearly by Marco Aurélio Purini, a friend with whom I share an assessment of the São Paulo scenario that is practically 100% identical. Incidentally, I met him during the 2012 municipal campaign, when he coordinated the “Students with Haddad” movement, organizing and mobilizing many young people (like me) in an intelligent and successful way. This campaign reminded me of something: contrary to the triumphalism and uncritical self-celebratory spirit, Haddad emphasized that Brazil, under the PT governments, had improved a lot, but only from the inside out, not from the outside out — in an assessment that was very consistent with the protests that would erupt in 2013, to which he was not even remotely able to respond — and therefore, it was the mayor’s job to focus on public transportation, urban mobility, quality public services, etc. This was at a time when Dilma was well-regarded and the PT was at its peak of popularity! Perhaps we need to revive something of this less boastful spirit.)

* Diogo Fagundes he is studying for a master's degree in law and is studying philosophy at USP.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE