By LISZT VIEIRA*
Promoting the achievements made by the government, or criticizing the absence or poor achievements of opposing governments, is talking about the past without giving hope for the future.
“The dream gives me joy: you are in it”
(excerpt from the song) Ronda, by Paulo Vanzolini)
1.
During election season, many people discuss the role of the economy or customs in capturing votes and forget a factor that is equally, if not more, important: hope.
Promoting the government's achievements, or criticizing the absence or poor achievements of opposing governments, is to talk about the past without giving hope for the future. Furthermore, macroeconomic data such as GDP, unemployment rate or income do not influence votes. The only economic data that influences the decision of the majority of voters is the price of food. And, in this regard, the Lula government is not doing well.
The memorable campaigns of the Lula 1 and Lula 2 governments were based on hope. In a recent interview, political scientist Marcos Nobre recalled the song Lula There. This song cleansed the soul and radiated hope. And in the current Lula III government, what do we have in terms of hope? The essence of the government is to form an alliance with the right, in the name of governability, to block the extreme right. We are in a reactive position, without hope for the future. We are against Bolsonarism, but what are we in favor of? A few isolated proposals do not amount to a political project.
The parties that support the government have no political projects, they do not point to the future, they do not present any utopia. The good parliamentarians are those who fight with the right. The left-wing agenda has disappeared and the left is limited to fighting the far right. A purely reactive attitude, and no longer proactive. And simply fighting the far right, however important it may be, does not generate hope.
Left-wing parties support the government that, in the name of governability, makes concessions to the market, the military and the parliamentary right. But the right wing gains the most from this, as it is politically strengthened by the left's abandonment of its agenda for change. Conciliation allows for small advances in the short term, but contributes to future electoral weakening. Sociologist Rudá Ricci, director of the Cultiva Institute, stated that “Waving to the right is dying on the beach”.
2.
Using a football metaphor, the government has put together a good defense, but its offense is weak and often ineffective, and voters want to see goals. Domestically, Lula plays defense. Internationally, he plays in the middle of the field, proposing mediation between countries in conflict. This is the most that diplomatic tradition allows. But in this way, he stops short of attacking and saying, for example, that the genocide and extermination of the Palestinian people is state policy in Israel. This would be a goal that would receive much more applause than boos from the opposing fans, and that would contribute to strengthening his international image as a statesman.
The fact is that in Brazil, and elsewhere, the majority of voters want change. Voters, for the most part, are against the “system.” And the left has become the system, supporting a government that is the system. Left-wing parties do not propose a paradigm shift, they do not attack big capital so as not to harm the government, they do not present proposals for structural changes.
Thus, the left loses votes to the right that talks about change. A large part of the youth in Argentina voted for Javier Milei, not because of political identification, but because of a desire for change, without having the slightest idea of what would happen next.
In Brazil, polls on the popularity of the president and the government fluctuate and will probably continue to fluctuate, without indicating a clear trend. But even in polls where Lula appears to be defeating his opponents, rejection is greater than approval, and this is not a good sign. To counterbalance this, the government's official propaganda appeals to Slogans traditionally used by the right, such as the slogan “Brazil belongs to Brazilians”. It is this type of slogan which justifies the repression of immigrants in Europe and the USA.
In the name of governability, the left ends up following the right. Either this changes and we reawaken hope in the people, or we run the risk of defeat in the next presidential election. Nelson Mandela said that “hope is a powerful weapon”, but the bureaucratic routine of power leads leaders to repetitive and monotonous speeches that do not point to any utopia or awaken hope. It would be good not to forget Victor Hugo’s lesson that “to create the future, nothing is better than a dream”.
Between a candidate who is accountable for his achievements and another who promises a better future, even with dubious promises, the latter tends to get more votes because he has brought hope to people's hearts and minds. The proposal to form an alliance with the right to block the far right is unlikely to work anymore because the far right, with its natural candidate declared ineligible, will tend to support a strong right-wing candidate, supported by the mainstream media and the American government. This means floods of money and fake news in support of the opposition candidate.
We need a political project that brings hope for the future. We need a new political utopia that brings us back to the dream, that powerful factor in the decision to vote.
*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
