The answer I suggest to this question points to two culprits, and the second of them is what no one wants to hear
With each new electoral cycle in Brazil, the scenario repeats itself: groups of so-called moderate politicians meet, launch manifestos for renewal, talk about fiscal rationality and civilized dialogue. However, invariably, we reach the second round with the same two names: Lula’s left and Bolsonaro’s right. The center disappears.
Why? The answer I suggest to this question points to two culprits, and the second of them is what no one wants to hear.
The first are the politicians in the center themselves, who outsource their identity to the polls. Sometimes they flirt with customary guidelines so as not to lose the right, sometimes they soften the economic discourse so as not to scare the popular electorate. The result is invisibility: no differentiation, no vote. A third way is not born from “summits of chiefs”, but rather from a clear agenda and the courage to tell voters things they don’t want to hear.
The second culprit is the voters themselves. There is a dangerous comfort in polarization. It eliminates the effort of thinking about nuances and projects, as all you have to do is choose a side, put on your shirt and curse the other. The moderate candidate demands more: he asks voters to accept half a victory, to live with complexity, to give up the adrenaline of confrontation. And, when it comes to voting, many people who defend the center on social media press the number of the radical candidate “so as not to waste their vote”.
Meanwhile, Lula governs by expanding spending without fiscal sustainability, and the Bolsonaro family continues to polarize with narratives of fear. The two extremes have one thing in common: they know exactly who they are and who they speak for, and they have loyal voters who never abandon them, no matter how bad their performance.
In 2026, Brazil would once again need a candidacy that defended economic freedom without giving up social protection, and that respected democracy not as a slogan, but as an insurmountable limit. This candidacy exists in the discourse of many, but it is not offered with consistency or regularity. When it comes to voting, it still hasn’t found its owner, and part of the blame lies with those who continue to wait for the perfect candidate to, in the end, vote for the usual candidate.
Rafael Resende is a consultant in public management and political science, political analyst and Livres leader.
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Jovem Pan.
