The British magazine published an editorial stating that the president (PT) should not run for re-election in 2026. According to the publication, despite Brazil having demonstrated in 2025 the resilience of its democratic institutions, the country “deserves better choices” in the next election.
In August, the magazine featured on its cover (PL) and the trial that condemned him for leading a coup plot. In an opinion piece titled “”, he described the conduct of the criminal proceedings against the former president and his allies as an institutional response that would counter widespread criticism from sectors of the American right.
In the editorial published this Tuesday (30), the magazine argues that the main reason for Lula, 80, to give up the race is his age. According to the text, another four years in office would be a risk in the case of a ruler who is now an octogenarian. The Economist cites the case of the former president of the United States, Joe Biden, as an example of the political and institutional costs of running at an advanced age, even though it recognizes that Lula appears to be in better physical condition.
The magazine also mentions the Brazilian president’s recent health problems, including brain surgery performed in December 2024 following a domestic fall. If reelected, Lula would leave office at the age of 85.
“Despite all his political talent, it is simply too risky for Brazil to have someone so elderly in power for another four years. Charisma is no shield against cognitive decline,” says the publication.
Another point raised is the wear and tear caused by corruption scandals associated with his first mandates, which, according to the publication, still weigh heavily on part of the electorate. The editorial also criticizes the government’s economic policy, classified as unambitious and excessively based on income transfer programs, although it recognizes advances such as the reform to simplify the tax system.
“Although Brazil has grown surprisingly fast in recent years, Lula’s economic policies are mediocre. They focus mainly on helping the poor, with revenue-raising measures increasingly unfriendly to businesses, although he has also pleased employers with a simplified tax reform.”
Despite the criticism, The Economist states that Lula remains the favorite as he does not face competitive opponents from the center and left. According to the text, the president did not prepare a viable successor and ended up discouraging potential candidacies. The Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad, is mentioned as a name that was considered, but would have been discarded due to lack of electoral appeal.
Datafolha research showed that, while the candidacy seems right to the majority of Brazilians, it is rejected by 57% of those interviewed. For them, Lula should not seek re-election, compared to 41% who support the endeavor.
A survey by the same research institute in December showed that government approval is stagnant. 32% of respondents consider the management to be good or excellent, while 37% rate it as bad or terrible, and 30% see it as regular.
On the right, the editorial assesses that Bolsonaro still exercises political influence and is trying to transfer his electoral capital to his son, the senator (PL-RJ).
“Flávio is unpopular, ineffective and would almost certainly lose a contest against Lula,” says the magazine.
The Economist points to the governor of , (Republicans), as the most competitive alternative, who appears better positioned in the polls, despite not having yet made his candidacy official. According to the editorial, Tarcísio would represent a younger option with greater institutional commitment.
“The president would do his country a favor and consolidate his legacy — something Biden has not done — by announcing that he will fulfill his promise and step aside from the race,” says The Economist. If this does not happen, the text concludes, it would be up to the right to reorganize itself around a name capable of overcoming the political polarization of recent years.
