Market sees no risk of coup, but society needs to point out limits, says former BC director

Luiz Fernando Figueiredo, former director of the Central Bank and founding partner of Mauá Capital, who entered the first wave of signatures of the pro-democracy manifesto to be launched on August 11 at the USP Law School, believes that, in fact, , Brazilian institutions do not run an institutional risk.

According to him, the financial market works with this type of risk. However, after repeated speeches by President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) against the polls, it is up to civil society to point out limits.

“It’s not that institutions are at risk properly. But whenever you have some kind of meaningless questioning or without consistency about the process we are experiencing, about institutions, it is up to civil society to say that it does not accept this type of thing”, says the businessman.

For Figueiredo, the hypothesis, presented by Bolsonaro, that the banks endorsed the request for respect for democracy makes no sense because they were “beaten” by the government with Pix.

The bankers’ names were exposed in the repercussions because they are known, but the movement is much broader, he says.

why mr. signed? We are entering a more sensitive period, in any democracy, which is the electoral period. Brazil, and this is my opinion, has strong institutions. It is not that institutions are at risk, per se. But every time you have some kind of pointless or inconsistent questioning about the process we are experiencing, about institutions, it is up to civil society to say that it does not accept this kind of thing. And that’s what we’re talking about now. As was done last year, when I also signed, as well as this year.

It’s cool, it’s for all kinds of people. It is not a sector, a niche. Civil society does not accept it. Nobody here is discussing risk. It has no link, no bias, no partisan vision. It’s zero. It is simply, look, Brazil has institutions, it has a very clear process, it has already been checked. On the issue of the polls, it was even discussed in Congress. There’s no conversation. This is the message that civil society is giving.

The way it was written, with the intention of not sounding like a manifesto for converts, contributed to the result. bulky? I think so. We are talking about times when there is radicalism. Even families have problems with each other. What became clear, and therefore this care, is that it has nothing to do with it. It is a vehement defense of democracy, the rule of law and the institutions that we have.

Last year, in the midst of the institutional tension at the time, Fiesp wrote a letter, but the collection of signatures created a split in Febraban, because Banco do Brasil and Caixa threatened to leave the federation of banks. This year, Febraban quickly endorsed it. Has there been any change in the financial sector since then? I think so. He got very annoying. It’s a personal view. That imbroglio was boring. From mistakes you learn and you don’t do it again. I think that’s what’s happening. Now, who am I to speak on behalf of Febraban.

I understand that, in your opinion, there is no risk of a coup, the point is to reiterate the limits. But the financial market works some scenario with this type of risk? No I do not think. In fact, it was more of the same. But be careful with the most of the same, in not saying things that cannot be said. There are things that cannot be said.

The names of the bankers were exposed in the repercussion of the manifesto, and Bolsonaro said that the banks joined because the government hit them with the Pix. This makes sense reasoning? It makes zero sense. They were exposed. It was put in their name, because maybe they are well-known people, but the list of people is huge.

Other manifestos have already taken place, but the president’s escalation against the polls continued. What kind of effect do signatories expect from this manifesto? It is clear that there is support from civil society to the institutions, to what is there. What is a politician’s biggest fear? It belongs to the voter, to those who vote for him. Ultimately, he is the boss of the country. And civil society is saying “we don’t accept any small talk against Brazilian institutions, against the Brazilian electoral process”. A discussion in Congress, all right, it’s part of it, it already had, and it was clear that the decision was that everything is working fine.

If the president rises in the polls as a result of the bounty package, it could empower him and deflate the effect of the manifests? It’s one thing to have a vote. It’s another thing to get more people to ultimately accept something that is against process. I don’t believe. What this manifesto says is exactly that.