After the press reported Lula da Silva’s alleged “sadness”, “disillusionment” and “fear”, the state of mind of Brazil’s president at the start of his fifth month in office erupted in the country’s political current affairs. In question, the obstacles in the current situation that Lula did not face in 2003 and in 2007 when he took office in the first two governments. However, the Allies were quick to deny the rumours. And political scientists see no reason for that.
“Lula is concerned and sometimes even saddened by the unfavorable conditions he faces today to rule Brazil,” wrote Mônica Bergamo, a columnist for the newspaper Folha de S. Paulo, who is considered close to the new tenants of the Planalto and Dawn. .
Aid workers and ministers who often work with Lula say that the times when he shows the greatest disappointment are when he realizes he has several limitations to enforce his will – and which are greater than those that existed in his two previous mandates.”, he continues.
“Between 2003 and 2010, the PT leader ruled with allies at the head of parliament for the first time, prevailed over the Central Bank, which was not yet independent, and enjoyed undeniable popularity that helped him overcome several crises “, as opposed to the current scenario of parliamentary defeats, arm wrestling until lost, with the Central Bank to cut interest rates, difficulties getting your lawyer’s name accepted before the Federal Supreme Court and setbacks in international politics.
Lula, according to close advisers, would live in a paradox: he was elected with greater ambitions than he had in previous elections and was determined not to make as many concessions this time as he had to make to govern before. power,” adds the journalist.
A close friend of Lula, lawyer Luiz Carlos da Rocha, said that “Mônica Bergamo is a great journalist”, but this time she was influenced by “a bad source”. “I was with Lula almost every day when he was imprisoned in Curitiba and I assure you: his depressed side died during childbirth, in 580 days in jail, alone on weekends, he had no sorrow and fear: he will be sad now and be anxious in the comfort of palaces?” he wondered.
DN wanted to know with political experts whether the grief, existing or not, is justified. Apparently not. “Lula needs to see the glass as half full and not half empty,” said Vinícius Rodrigues Vieira, a professor of economics and international relations at the Armando Álvares Penteado Foundation. “The number of votes, the narrowest margin in history, already indicated more difficulties for Lula in this term than in the previous two, but I think there is an exaggerated pessimism towards the government, taking into account the macroeconomic indicators with growth prospects.”
“The external scenario does not look favorable either, but as long as the war in Ukraine lasts, the goods tend to stay at a high price, which is good for Brazil,” says Vieira, for whom, still in international politics, “there are good perspectives on the indigenous and environmental issue”.
And we have to ask why Lula was elected: he was elected to ensure democracy in Brazil, so much so that parts of the center that never swallowed him up migrated to his candidacy and would not have migrated had it not been for his opponent Jair Bolsonaro . , who planned a coup to destroy democracy according to the evidence that is accumulating day after day”.
“The relationship with Congress is a concern, due to party fragmentation and the powers parliamentarians have acquired in the governments of Michel Temer and Bolsonaro, but this does not diminish the capacity of the president on the social agenda, which Alckmin still has for the bridge with the sector. entrepreneurship”, he concludes.
Mayra Goulart, a professor at the Federal University of Rio de Janeiro, agrees. “What we see in Congress is pressure for parliamentary support that differs from the traditional one. In the traditional discussion, the discussion was through parties, in coalitions, where the government negotiated directly with party leaders, but this type of negotiation was only in effect until Eduardo wedge [o presidente da Câmara dos Deputados em 2015 e 2016 que promoveu o impeachment de Dilma Rousseff]”.
“When Cunha succeeded in employing parliamentarians individually, without the involvement of party leaders, traditional coalitions collapsed and this was particularly noticeable in the governments of Temer and Bolsonaro, both of whom were vulnerable to Congress, as the legislature gained a great deal of leverage. on the budget”.
“With an administration like Lula’s, stronger from a party point of view, in the academy, in the public mind, Congress is afraid of losing this conquered ascendancy, hence the tension,” Goulart added. “Since this tension will only decrease if the popularity of the government rises, because then the parliamentarians will want to associate with it. Goulart, for whom “the tension with the Central Bank was already expected”, admits, however, “a new challenge”: “the organization of the right in social movements and through an economic elite willing to fund these movements: this is a difference from previous Lula governments”.
Source: DN
