By LISZT VIEIRA*
In the name of governability, the left ends up following the right. Either this changes and we reawaken hope in the people, or we will head for defeat in the next presidential election.
“To create the future, nothing is better than a dream”
(Victor Hugo)
Suppose a candidate for reelection claims that his government has increased GDP, reduced unemployment, increased income, and built more homes, while food prices have gone up. Now suppose a demagogic opposition candidate who reaffirms traditional conservative values and promises that the poor will become rich and that the country will grow, all with the unconditional support of the media and the American government.
I regret to inform you that the second candidate will probably get more votes. He appeals to hope, and the first candidate is relentless. He governed in alliance with right-wing parties to block the extreme right, in the name of governability. The social advances achieved by the first candidate will be disregarded, even more so because his economic policy is conservative, involving fiscal austerity that channels public resources to the financial market, substantially reducing funding for health, education and the entire social sector.
When left-wing parties in power, in the name of governability, make concessions to the market, the military and the parliamentary right, the winner is the right, which is politically strengthened by the abandonment, by the left, of its agenda of change. Conciliation allows for small advances in the short term, but contributes to a probable electoral victory for the right.
We are talking, of course, about the Lula government. It made important concessions in the name of governability. The Ministry, in general, is mediocre. The right-wing ministers – the majority – are at the service of capital, and the left-wing ministers in the social area have not yet made their point, with the exception of the Minister of Health, who was recently ousted. The government always seeks to conciliate with Congress and does not put forward a progressive left-wing agenda to confront, even in the minority, a Legislature dominated by the right. On the institutional level, the left has disappeared. The grassroots work was abandoned a long time ago and the unions have lost the importance they once had.
Given this situation, Lula's popularity has plummeted. The discourse of a broad front with the right to block the extreme right is no longer convincing. The majority of the population wants change, they want hope, and this government has no brand, does not inspire any hope. It has no audacity. If things continue like this, if there are no changes towards a new paradigm, the risk of losing the next election is very high.
Traditionally, the economic factor is considered the main factor in voting. But macroeconomic data has little influence on voting intentions. Joe Biden's defeat is a good example. The economy was doing well, with the exception of food prices, and Joe Biden was defeated by Donald Trump's demagogic speech promising MAGA, Make America Great Again. This doesn't mean anything, but it allows everyone to dream about whatever content they want.
No matter how absurd the promises, what remains in people's hearts and minds is hope. I remember that Leonel Brizola, in the election for governor of Rio de Janeiro in 1982, promised to put a cow on every street corner to give milk to children. And he made other absurd promises like that, and won the election, awakening hope in the people.
This well-behaved and traditional model of the Lula government does not point to any utopia, nor does it give anyone hope. There is a lack of audacity to carry out measures in the interest of the people, contrary to the dominant interests. Fortune helps the bold.
On March 6, the government eliminated import taxes on several products, such as meat, coffee, sugar, corn, cooking oil, and olive oil. If this does not work, Lula declared that he will take “more drastic measures.” Since the market will probably boycott these measures, Lula may finally decide to make bolder decisions that produce results and inspire hope.
The market will complain, the press will scream, and they will go to court, which will take a while to make a final decision. Meanwhile, the government is strengthening itself with the majority of the population. We need to be bold in order to break away from this well-behaved model, this “good guyism”, this conciliatory policy that strengthens the right wing, which today supports the government and tomorrow will support the opposition candidate.
The rise of the right wing around the world is not an isolated phenomenon, but a response to real crises and dissatisfactions. For example, dissatisfaction with traditional political elites is well exploited by the right wing. This discontent has been capitalized on by right wing parties, which often adopt anti-democratic rhetoric.establishment, and criticize the corruption and inefficiency of previous governments.
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, nor do they attack big capital so as not to harm the government. Of course, there are small left-wing groups that are faithful to their original programs. But the left-wing parties that support the government do not present proposals for structural changes. The word socialism, for example, has disappeared from the political map.
In the name of governability, the left ends up following the right. Either this changes and we reawaken hope in the people, or we will be heading for defeat in the next presidential election. Nelson Mandela said that hope is a powerful weapon and no power in the world can deprive you of it.
But the bureaucratic routine of power leads leaders to a chant of repetitive and monotonous speeches that do not point to any utopia or awaken any hope. It would be good not to forget Victor Hugo's lesson for whom, "to create the future, nothing is better than a dream."
*Liszt scallop é teacher retired sociologist from PUC-Rio. He was a congressman (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
