By LISZT VIEIRA*
Lula’s sphinx does not ask riddles, but demands answers: either the government breaks with the policy of conciliation that weakens it, or it will be devoured by history. The time of the “good guy” is over – only a clear and courageous project will save his legacy from the ballot boxes hungry for change.
Times change, desires change
(Camoes).
1.
In a defeat for the government, Congress overturned the decree on the new IOF. The general view that is conveyed to the population is that of a weak government that gives everything and receives nothing. The government released more than R$1 billion in parliamentary amendments before the IOF vote in Congress. This amount, however, was not enough to prevent the presidential decree from being overturned.
In the days leading up to the vote on the decree, more than R$1 billion was added to the system in terms of committed funds, totaling R$1,9 billion in amendments released this year (The Globe, 27/6/2025). The government must file a lawsuit with the STF to question the overturning of the IOF by Congress, claiming that the Legislature violated the separation of powers.
The policy of making alliances with the right wing to block the extreme right worked in the last election, but it no longer works. The right wing, with the support of the media, is already opposing Lula and the government ministers, appointed by the right wing parties, are already openly committed to opposing Lula.
Power has shifted from the Executive to the Legislative branch, which now exercises power without assuming responsibility. The secret budget is a glaring example. The presidential coalition system has been replaced by a semi-parliamentary system. This began with the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff and was strengthened mainly under the government of Jair Bolsonaro. However, behind the Legislative branch, the ones who actually determine the decisions in Congress are mainly the financial market and agribusiness.
With the weakening of civil society organizations, starting with unions, financial capital and its allies reign supreme, controlling all the media and the decisions of Congress, which has made a preferential option for the rich, placing the burden of fiscal adjustment on the backs of the poor. The Legislature has been captured by clientelism, has abandoned the public interest and has become a kind of union of private interests.
The government has to find a new paradigm, probably by appealing to popular mobilization. Either Lula “turns the tables”, “does a U-turn”, and denounces this Congress that votes against the people, denounces the Central Bank that keeps interest rates high to guarantee high profits for the Banks and investors in the financial market, explaining to the population that fighting inflation is a pretext, or, if he continues as he is, the risk of losing the next election is great.
2.
A government without direction, without a political project, loses its personality and does not inspire hope in the population. This has been said from the rooftops by many people, including the author of these lines. But, in addition to substantive proposals in politics, one of the urgent changes that is needed is communication with the electorate.
The government seems unaware that politics today is conducted mainly through digital communication, with traditional forms of contact with the electorate taking a back seat.
Technology has changed the way politics is done. The platforms and rallies where Lula shone have been replaced by social media, where the right-wing opposition predominates and has shown undeniable superiority in several clashes, such as the Pix crisis and the INSS scandal.
It is incredible that the Lula government, with the power of the State in its hands, is unable to match the extreme right in digital communication. There is something very wrong with the communication of a government that still lives in the analog world. Of course, the problem is not limited to communication. Many ministers, including those in the social area, do not appear because they have nothing to say or show. With a few honorable exceptions, the ministers in the social area have not yet said what they came for.
In the latest DataFolha poll, released on June 14, Lula beats any candidate in the first round. However, in the second round, the difference between Lula and Tarcísio de Freitas, the current Governor of São Paulo and likely opposition candidate, is only 6%. Lula would have 1% and Tarcísio de Freitas 43%. Let's face it, that's very little. And the disapproval rate is very worrying. The disapproval rate is 42%, the highest of all his terms. At the end of his second term, in December 40, Lula had an 2010% approval rating and a 83% disapproval rating!
This high disapproval rate needs to be better understood and explained. The economic data from Lula's government are very good. GDP and income are growing, and unemployment is falling. But the electoral impact seems to be small. Either these economic benefits have not reached a large part of the population or, if they have, they have not produced any effect and have not influenced voting decisions. The good results in the economy are not helping President Lula's popularity.
As the late economist Maria da Conceição Tavares used to say, the people do not eat GDP.
3.
Positive economic data alone does not generate votes. However, food prices influence votes among the middle and low-income classes. And in this regard, the government is not doing well.
Since the start of the Covid-19 pandemic in 2020, food prices have risen by just over 55%. This number exceeds the increase in inflation over the same period, which was 33,4%, according to data from the IBGE. Lula's lower approval rating among the poor is due to the rise in food prices, said Development Minister Wellington Dias. However, there are signs that food prices are likely to slow down.
Middle or low-income voters would be influenced by fake news, by commercial media, by biased or false information generated by pro-Bolsonaro social networks? Would non-economic factors such as customs or corruption, for example, be having more weight than before?
There are those who believe that the good results in the economy will eventually prevail and influence the electorate. For now, this is a belief, without proof. By all indications, the President's popularity level is not primarily linked to the results of the economy.
This scenario is somewhat reminiscent – with some differences – of the last US election. Joe Biden's government achieved good results in the economy, but Donald Trump won by a wide margin. I hope this serves as a warning for the 2026 election campaign, which has already begun.
A hesitant and weak government does not excite the population, which prefers a strong, assertive government, and not a government afraid of displeasing the right wing so as not to lose the votes in Congress that it is already losing.
It is urgent to find a new philosophy of communication that awakens, as Paulo Freire said, hope and dreams in the population. To do this, it will be necessary not only to urgently change ministers and advisors, but mainly to denounce, loud and clear, the eagerness of the ruling class to appropriate public resources and sabotage the payment of taxes.
Times change, wills change, said the Portuguese poet Luís de Camões in his famous sonnet. The time of the “good guy” negotiator is long gone. The role of political “warrior” defending the interests of the people would gain more support from the electorate. But to produce an effective message, it will be necessary to abandon the outdated discourse of the analog era and enter the digital era once and for all.
The resounding defeat of the left in the 2024 municipal elections has raised red flags. We have more than a year to go until the presidential election, and there is still time for the President to reverse his falling popularity and win the election.
But to do so, Lula will have to decipher the enigma that is placed before his sphinx: Either he deciphers it, or he will be devoured by the polls. And to decipher it, the government, among other measures, will have to change its paradigm of alliances with the right, denounce the fiscal austerity that is blocking the country's development, go on the offensive in defense of popular interests and enter the digital age.
*Liszt scallop is a retired professor of sociology at PUC-Rio. He was a deputy (PT-RJ) and coordinator of the Global Forum of the Rio 92 Conference. Author, among other books, of Democracy reactsGaramond). [https://amzn.to/3sQ7Qn3]
the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE
