It even looks like they are two neighboring countries called Brazil. In one of them — less populated — the only talk is about elections, especially presidential ones. Journalists; academics and intellectuals in general; political leaders, in the government and in the opposition; business leaders and social activists; opinion leaders; citizens interested in public life, every week follow the ups and downs of the polls every week.
Like it or not, they seem to believe that they live in a larger country that is irrevocably divided between supporters of the center-left, dominated by the president, and defenders of the right, gathered around Jair Bolsonaro’s heir.
In the other Brazil, there lives an immense contingent of ordinary people, for whom the October elections are still a long way off and do not compete with the needs of everyday life.
In an interview with this Sheetpolitical scientist Jairo Nicolau, from Fundação Getúlio Vargas, argues that the so-called polarization, although neither ideological nor programmatic, mobilizes intense affections. But it does not divide the electorate. According to him, the tense and intransigent opposition between opposing political camps is a phenomenon limited to elites and educated and informed public opinion. It does not penetrate the vast majority of the population, which is outside the dispute and whose vote may lean towards one side or the other.
In fact, when asked who they would vote for if the election were held today, without mentioning possible candidates, a significant number of Brazilians say they do not know what they would do at the polls — 39% according to the May survey. Those who give a spontaneous answer mention well-known names: President Lula (27%); former president Jair Bolsonaro (3%); or his eventual political heir (18%).
It would be difficult for a country polarized from top to bottom to have such a large number of undecided voters.
The polarization that could once again force society to choose between moderate left and extreme right is actually the result of institutional design and decisions by political leaders.
The choice of a president in two-round majority elections necessarily leads to the final dispute between two candidates, who have to emphasize the differences that separate them, be they programmatic, character or leadership style.
On the other hand, decisions already taken this year by leaders on the left or right have produced a concentration of candidacies even before they are approved by party conventions. President Lula and the PT worked to prevent competitors from emerging in the center-left camp.
On the other side of the fence, the forces of the traditional right accepted that Bolsonarism, although in the minority, was imposed. By launching two politically indistinguishable pre-candidates — the former governors and —, and disregarding Eduardo Leite’s centrist candidacy, Gilberto Kassab only made the far-right leadership fertilized.
A lot can still happen, but if the sharp confrontation takes place again between progressive moderation and right-wing extremism, don’t blame the supposed sectarian mood of the majority of Brazilians.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
