CNN commentator José Eduardo Cardozo and former senator and journalist Ana Amélia Lemos debated, on Friday (1st), in The Great Debate (Monday to Friday, at 11pm), if, With the defeat, should the government retaliate against Alcolumbre or not?
After rejecting the nomination of Jorge Messias to the Federal Supreme Court (STF), the Lula government is evaluating the possibility of dismissing occupants of positions of trust linked to the president of the Senate, Davi Alcolumbre, identified as a central figure in the articulation against the nomination. The measure would be a direct response to the defeat suffered by Planalto.
Randolfo Rodrigues, government leader in Congress, publicly ruled out any retaliatory action. “We are not going to turn yesterday’s result, or any result, into a witch hunt. That’s how politics is not done and democracy is not built,” he stated. He added that the government accepts the Senate’s decision, remembering that the responsibility for questioning rests with the House.
Experts are against retaliation
Commentator José Eduardo Cardozo assessed that the government should not adopt a retaliatory stance. For him, “governing is the art of knowing how to swallow frogs” and acting impulsively in the face of an institutional defeat can deepen the crisis to the detriment of the government itself. “Whoever declares war, in this context, is the one who will lose”, he pondered. Cardozo defended that Planalto must act calmly and recognize that institutionality was respected, no matter how painful the situation.
Ana Amélia Lemos shared a similar view, highlighting that retaliation would be “the worst of all strategies” and would have negative consequences for the electoral campaign. She also highlighted the personal relationship between Randolfo Rodrigues and Davi Alcolumbre, both from Amapá, as a factor that makes any direct offensive even more unlikely. “Retaliating now will be the worst course of action for the government,” he said.
Debate on new nomination to the STF
Another central point of the debate was the question of whether or not Lula should present one before the elections. Cardozo was in favor of a new appointment, even suggesting that the government could nominate a black woman with indisputable qualifications. “If the Senate rejects it again, it will not look good for the Senate”, he argued, defending that the government adopts an “offensive stance within what the Constitution authorizes”.
Ana Amélia Lemos recognized that both options — indicating or not indicating — involve considerable political risks. She considered that leaving the STF with an open vacancy could compromise judgments relevant to the country, but that a new defeat in the Senate would also weigh negatively on the government. “This is a calculation that the president’s sensitivity and experience will dictate”, he concluded.
Electoral impact is considered limited
Regarding the possible electoral consequences of Alcolumbre’s influence in the episode, Cardozo assessed that the defeat, although bitter, is unlikely to cause a migration of votes. “Lula did not nominate an unqualified person, he nominated a highly qualified person. And various reasons caused the Senate to reject it,” he said, concluding that he does not envisage direct electoral consequences of the episode.
Ana Amélia Lemos agreed that Alcolumbre’s electoral impact tends to be regional, restricted to Amapá and the institutional environment of the Senate. She warned, however, that the senator’s image could be affected if he were to block possible impeachment requests from Supreme Court ministers, in a scenario in which the issue has gained increasing visibility in Brazilian society.
