Opinion – Latinoamérica21: Lula da Silva’s dilemma

There is a lot of consensus among Brazilian analysts that the recent invasion of the buildings of the Powers on January 8 has the immediate effect of opening a window of opportunity in favor of action by the government of President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Where there is less consensus is with respect to the size and duration of this window.

Widespread rejection of the attack was demonstrated at the institutional level and on the streets of major cities, where a firm hand against the violent invaders was demanded. But other data are less coincidental. The Senate’s condemnation vote went ahead without counting on the favorable vote of Bolsonarist senators. Likewise, in several states there were also demonstrations by Bolsonaro followers in favor of the freedom of those detained in the events condemned by the authorities of the three Powers.

As to the duration of this lapse of opportunity, it appears to be highly uncertain. It depends a lot on Lula’s handling of the crisis and the reverberations it has in other fields, such as among economic actors. The demand for political stability in these sectors will weigh on the economic team of the new Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad, who is facing the challenge of recovering the macroeconomic balance from the country.

There is, therefore, a demand from the radical sectors of the left, who also inhabit the interior of the PT, who intend to take advantage of the coup plot to take a leap forward in a program of class confrontation. This perspective often feeds on ignorance –or undervaluation– of the sociocultural division in Brazil, which has been replaced by the idea that Bolsonarism is a radical proto-facist movement.

It is evident that among Bolsonaro’s followers there is a radical sector that does not know the rules of the democratic game, but to believe that the 49% who voted for Bolsonaro are in this mood is to simplify the analysis. On the other hand, to believe that Lula already leads a broad political field (left, center and right), which includes more than half of the population that supported him in the elections, is to fall into a mirage. It means considering the mass rejection of the coup as a long-term window of opportunity for Lula. A mirage similar to what happened in Chile with the election of Boric, whose team thought it had a broad base of support and today does not explain the drop in its popular support (below 30% of the electorate).

However, it is unlikely that Lula will give in to the temptation of such an advanced flight. If the new president avoids this radical perspective, the dilemma he faces comprises two possible perspectives: governing knowing that Brazil is radically divided and trying to reunite it, as he promised the night of the election results, or governing despite the existing division, trying to hide it. it or dodge it. Both options have their own fundamentals.

Governing trying to circumvent polarization can start from the simple expectation, very frequent after the crisis, that time will calm down, which would make it depend on the success of the development of a general government of the new president. But there is another more forceful argument: considering that the reunification of the country is impossible.

This is the orientation of several academic analysts. An article by Andrés Malamud, from the University of Lisbon, taking as reference the thesis of Timothy Power, professor at Oxford, that in polarized societies there cannot be very popular presidents, sustains that the only thing that can be aspired to in such societies is that “the hatred of half the population is expressed at the ballot box and peacefully in the streets, but not in government palaces”. In short, accepting that polarization is inevitable, trying to keep it within peaceful limits.

It may be that this prediction, not very edifying, is the most realistic, but it means assuming that Lula’s promise to reunite the country is just a chimera, because, regardless of his will, it is unattainable. But accepting that the division of society is insurmountable means accepting that it is impossible to promote a dialogue on different worldviews that would allow reaching new sociocultural consensuses or, at least, very broad majorities in this regard. Something that would imply denying the possibility of citizen deliberation, the result of a communicative process (as proposed by the German sociologist Jürgen Habermas).

In the case of Brazil, this dilemma has a markedly religious component.

A former collaborator of Lula, Marina Silva, today Minister of the Environment, now an evangelical, argues that it is necessary to have an attitude of dialogue with evangelism “which will soon be almost half of the Brazilian population”. And there is a consensus in Brazil that Bolsonarism is clearly the majority in the evangelical sphere. Will it be impossible to carry out a dialogue with this worldview, clearly different from that of the Workers’ Party?

Let’s hope that Lula does not abandon the challenge of achieving the reunification of Brazil by promoting citizen deliberation, supported by the execution of a good government. Keeping this promise would not only increase the desire for a less violent Brazil, but also bring some hope of conceiving a less threatening regional horizon.

It is necessary to keep in mind the Peruvian warning about what it means to try to advance a radical project in a politically divided society. Perhaps it is more useful than being predisposed to use the tired notion of fascism to analyze any conflict scenario, especially through simplistic comparisons with the phenomena led by Hitler or Mussolini in the first half of the last century.