Two editorials from renowned foreign outlets showed different views on the possible re-election of Luiz Inácio da Silva (PT). The British and Financial Times said nothing that hadn’t already been said and repeated in more depth in opinion articles in Brazilian newspapers.
Still, they attracted attention because here we are always interested in knowing how we are seen from the outside. To protest or celebrate what the eyes reveal. The magazine (Economist) criticizes his decision and the newspaper (Financial) bets on the president’s favoritism.
One perception focuses on Lula’s age, using the North American example as a —questionable— reference. The other is based on current data, taking into account research, economic perspectives and the mistakes of the opposing camp.
Both analyzes lack detailed knowledge about the specificities of Brazilian political reality. Natural for those who do not live with national circumstances, but for this very reason they should not be received as precise diagnoses and much less justify patriotic reactions to criticism.
The Economist believes that Lula should not run because he is 80 years old and has already experienced serious health problems. The magazine points out a fact, but ignores that he, unlike Biden, does not appear to have cognitive disorders.
The PT member’s shortcomings for another four years in office are other: obsolete vision of the economy, exhaustion of leadership and, above all, the self-reference that prevents the left from alternating protagonism.
The Financial Times is betting on re-election taking into account voter intention polls, overcoming Donald Trump’s tariff crisis, the defense of national sovereignty and the disorganization of the right.
Circumstantial factors, whose expiration date may run out due to the volatility and specificities of local politics that have the strange habit of not having faith in writings.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
