Once the results of the municipal disputes were known, a lively public discussion began between intellectuals about the party’s direction, in the face of a vote that confirmed its position in the country’s main elections.
Important for the fate of the progressive field, the debate arrives with great vigor and is delayed by a few years. What interrupted the president’s mandate, the legal abuses of Lava Jato, its use by far-right forces and, finally, the victory in 2018 led it to a defensive position, in which it did not seem necessary – much less possible – for the party reflected on its mistakes: the clumsy conduct of economic policy after 2008, the condescension in the face of the corruption of its own and its allies in the government coalition.
The opposition to the Bolsonaro government and, finally, the dispute to take away his re-election, did not require programmatic renewal or a speech that translated it. The defense of democracy, in fact threatened by a president with a fascist vocation and coup intentions, supported the electoral campaign and facilitated support from democratic personalities and voters, more towards the center of the political spectrum. In addition to opposing the autocratic threat, the candidate only had to promise a return to the good times of the first decade of the century. Times when, under PT management, the economy grew; millions of Brazilians crossed the poverty line and settled in the so-called class C; elites became more diverse, less white and male; and, abroad, the country began to be considered an emerging nation.
Lula won by mechanical eye, keeping an eye on the rear view mirror, promising reconstruction, without any innovative proposal in any field of government action.
Therefore, his government cannot help but appear old and out of touch. It is true that there are many initiatives that germinate here and there, in ministries more committed to making public policies than producing short-term dividends for their holders. But they are unable to brighten the PT’s fifth presidential term.
Therefore, the ongoing debate in the caption is more than welcome. At its root, it concerns how to reconnect the party to its popular bases, today contested by right-wing leaders capable of using the languages of the poor and providing them with a new lexicon to talk about old situations – such as self-employment, today circulating under the name of entrepreneurship.
If this is the question, the debate is not so much about moving less or more to the center, speaking the evangelical language or using the syntax of a poor entrepreneur. Nor improve government or party communication. It is about finding innovative progressive responses, based on principles of equity – as well as being fiscally viable – to the problems experienced by a vast contingent of the population – job insecurity; fear of increasing crime; low quality of education; endless queues at SUS; climate disasters. It is also a nod to the republican idea of clean government and social interaction that respects each person’s values and beliefs.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
