Tebet says that Lula’s fatal mistake for not winning in the 1st round was not detailing the government’s plan

Now alongside Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s (PT) campaign, senator Simone Tebet (MDB) claims that the “fatal error” that cost PT the victory in the first round of elections was not having detailed its government plan and having just focused on his past deeds.

Tebet ended Sunday’s election (2) in third place, with 4.16% (almost 5 million votes).

“The fatal mistake, in my view, that made the candidate Lula not win in the first round was the inability to perceive that only one detail was missing. The voter knows what the PT government was like, with its advances and flaws. But I was expecting a speech, not from the television program, but in the debates, on the platforms, a speech about the Brazil of the future”, Tebet tells Sheet.

Therefore, she now hopes that this error will be corrected. She does not ask Lula to announce in advance the Minister of Economy in his eventual government. But she considers it necessary that, at least, the profile of this situation is already disclosed.

Despite taking third place, Tebet gained political strength during the election campaign. He did well in debates, he rose at times in the polls and his support began to be courted. However, the senator misleads about her future, both in an eventual Lula government and in the next presidential elections. “If I projected 2026, my path would be neutrality [não apoio a Lula]”, he says.

How do you evaluate the first round of the elections and your campaign? What happened during the electoral period is exactly a reflection of what was happening in Brazil: polarization between two so-called ideological currents, a shallow power dispute, in which the voter was never sure of knowing what the proposals and concrete solutions to the problems were. from Brazil. There was no clash between the main characters, who even fled the debate.

In this aspect, unfortunately, we saw in the electoral period what we have seen over these three and a half years: a divided country, a shallow hate speech, contaminated by fake news, often nationalist ideas, sometimes populist. And the reflection of that was that we couldn’t have parallel candidacies or alternatives that could somehow pierce the bubble.

Does President Bolsonaro come out strengthened? Of all the mistakes we have made, perhaps the most serious has been made by the candidate Lula’s campaign when he takes upon himself the request for a useful vote, which is legitimate —I would do the same thing—, but without giving the voter a minimum of security of what this third term will be. He didn’t deliver in the slightest through speech, only through a shallow, superficial document, what the proposals will be in the area of ​​employment generation, education, health, whatever.

Given this scenario, I don’t think Bolsonaro came out strengthened. The useful votes, mine and Ciro’s, of that less secure voter, ended up going to Bolsonaro, because the voter didn’t feel safe to guarantee the election for Lula in the first round, precisely because of this lack of clarity.

He talked a lot about the past and said “no, I don’t need to make promises”. So that voter who wasn’t very safe with me and Ciro, he made the option “Wait a minute, I’m going to vote here for Bolsonaro”. I don’t see that Bolsonaro has come out strengthened.

Do you think that the PT now needs to detail the plan in more detail? economic? Fundamental! The fatal mistake, in my view, that made the candidate Lula not win in the first round was the inability to realize that only one detail was missing. Voters know what the PT government was like, with its advances and with its flaws. He knows what they did and what they didn’t do. But the voter was waiting for speech [de Lula], not from the television program, but from the speech in the debates, on the platforms, a speech about the Brazil of the future. That is to say: what is the Brazil that PT is ready to deliver for the future of Brazil starting in January of next year.

And it’s not in the details, it’s in the simplicity of the proposals. Obviously, through the economic agenda, which way, if you come a little more to the center; not in liberalism, which is obviously not part of the economic vision of the left, but something that gives comfort and brings together. And it is possible.

And from there what are the social programs. and what [Lula] will make definitive public policies. It is not just Auxílio Brasil, Auxílio Brasil is necessary, but I cannot make an entire generation, in a country as rich as Brazil, be eternally dependent on aid from the federal government.

As a signal, should Lula already announce who will be his Minister of Economy, for example? I don’t think it has to be. It’s hard to anticipate and then not be able to go back. A lot changes within this fast-paced electoral process. Choosing early is not a good policy. Perhaps to signal the profile of the future economist, who may not necessarily be an economist. The profile of a next finance minister [Economia] I think this is a good sign to reassure the Brazilian economy, which may even start to show signs as of December, November; positive signs, which later facilitate lower interest rates, lower inflation, the start of the next term.

Do you still want to be president of the Republic and think about 2026? I still want to help Brazil in any way I can. I am first and foremost a teacher, a woman and a mother. I have much more than I deserve in my life. And what I heard along my campaign journey I didn’t expect to see more in my life. I regrettably saw civilizational setbacks and social indicators, exactly what I saw at the beginning of my public life in the 1970s: the same map of hunger, the same social inequality, the same apathy, the same lack of perspective, a scenario almost of abandonment.

Now I obviously have to rethink what my role is as a citizen and as a Brazilian, at this serious moment in history, given the legacy I have. I especially notice [que] with Brazilian women there was an approximation of ideas, they felt represented in some way with what I had, with my outbursts, my indignation, with my proposals. So I know that I leave with the responsibility of a legacy that is much more political than electoral. I believe you planted good seeds.

You avoid talking about occupying ministries, but would you accept it if you were invited? I have no pretensions and I think I can contribute, if you think my voice is important, giving suggestions, making my critical remarks, without needing a position. I can contribute from a computer screen, via Zoom, in my state, in my city, we can contribute by running Brazil.

I already went [do Poder] Executive, city hall twice, deputy governor. I think we have to put an end to this physiologism for support. Parties cannot support for positions. Of course, parties must have space, but parties that ideologically think alike. Now Brazil has such serious and complex problems that the President of the Republic must have the freedom to choose the best ones.

Has Lula’s campaign assured that it will incorporate some of his proposals? I gave every comfort to present feasible, concrete, easy-to-implement and fundamental proposals. We need to take care of our children at the right time, in early childhood; return to school our young people who are now away, going to the margins, and this savings [que estava em seu plano de governo] it is a way of guaranteeing him this technical education, obviously of quality. We need to clear the dammed queues [do SUS] and pass a law that guarantees equal pay

I have presented ideas so simple that I hope they will be accepted. Of course, I made it clear that the only way for the president to govern is to have some fiscal anchor. If he doesn’t have a commitment to responsibility, and I’m not even talking about a spending cap, he won’t get the Budget back because he’ll be held hostage by a physiological Congress and won’t reach the social.

There is nothing that we have presented that is not doable and easy to perform. There has already been a signal that they could heed all the suggestions. It’s tomorrow [sexta-feira] there will be something official. I’ve already had a signal that, according to candidate Lula’s agenda, he is going to meet me so that we can formalize the proposals and their return.

Do you intend to take an active stance in Lula’s campaign? And do you already have an idea if you’re going to take the stage, travel Brazil? I’m ready to be on the streets, vigilant in defense of democracy, to defend ideas that I agree with. I don’t know what the limit is and my importance within the campaign, how much I am needed. This negotiation will take place after my meeting with President Lula, where he will be accepting or not our suggestions.

Obviously I’m not going to go up on a platform where the PT supports one candidate and the MDB or the coalition supports another. I don’t see a problem with being together on regional platforms where we have candidates in common. That’s a question of his campaign’s political strategy than mine. I will obviously be on the regional platforms that invite me regardless of the PT.

What risks do you see of a possible second Bolsonaro government, now with a stronger base in Congress? It worried me, it scared me, not the conservative character of the National Congress, because that is part of democracy. The problem is that, alongside the conservatives, we have representatives of reactionary sectors, we are talking about an increase in the bullet caucus, of people who have more extremist views on the right, alongside inexperienced ones who come with very specific agendas.

This political hegemony, the political support of the Legislature, is the antechamber of the new autocracy, of the new white dictatorship, which is veiled, which is more serious because no one sees it.

So you are the Executive and you dominate the Chamber, you dominate the Senate, based on that you reform the Judiciary, create positions, you have a majority and then you are ready to edit a third term, increase the number of vacancies [de ministros do STF]. And you allow, even on the basis of fear, to say “stay in your corner, because or I will install an impeachment process and I will remove you from office”.

Simone Tebet, 52

– Born in Três Lagoas (MS)
– University professor and lawyer
– She was a state deputy, mayor of Três Lagoas for two terms and vice-governor of Mato Grosso do Sul. Elected to the Senate in 2014, she was president of the CCJ (Constitution and Justice Commission), leader of the women’s bench and even contested for the presidency of the House. She worked at the Covid CPI. She ran this year for the presidency of the Republic for the MDB.