Genial/Quaest research released in the second week of May 2026 showed that a third of the Brazilian electorate — 32% — identify as independentaligning itself neither with Lulism nor with Bolsonarism. However, this voting potential has not converted into support to alternative applications.
Originally, the expression “third way” was not born in Brazil. She emerged in Europe like a attempt to renew the policyseeking a balance between socialism and liberalism. Formulated by the English sociologist Anthony Giddens, the idea was to escape the choice between “just the market” or “just the State”.
This vision took over the world in the 90s with leaders such as Tony Blair (United Kingdom), Bill Clinton (USA) and Fernando Henrique Cardoso himself in Brazil. In practice, the proposal was provide answers that the traditional division between left and right could no longer offer.
Over time, the concept lost strength internationally, and, in Brazil today, the expression is used in a simpler way: to define any candidate who tries to break the dispute between the two favorites.
This Wednesday (10), the as follows:
- Lula (PT): 39%
- Flávio Bolsonaro (PL): 29%
- Ronaldo Caiado (PSD): 3%
- Romeu Zema (New): 2%
The former governors of GO and MG, respectively, position themselves as possibilities of a third way, despite disputing the same electorate as Flávio . However, polls point to the enormous distance they are from the two main pre-candidates.
Center candidatures
Wilson Gomes, professor of communication at Ufba (Federal University of Bahia) and doctor in philosophy, considers that the percentage of 32% of independents tends to be misleading not paper. “Only just over a third of this group actually tends to vote for one of the candidates. This means that the 32% of independents could become something between 10% and 15% at the time of the ‘let’s see election'”, he points out.
Another figure who sought to consolidate himself as this alternative was the former governor of Rio Grande do Sul Eduardo Leite. In the PSD, he appeared as one of the presidential candidates alongside Caiado and Ratinho Júnior. Although the governor of Paraná was the party’s favorite, he focused on the state succession. Without the final approval of the party president, Gilberto Kassab, Leite ended up losing space in the party and decided to remain in the executive position in Rio Grande do Sul until the end of the year.
That difficulty with alternative names is not new: in 2018 and 2022, applications such as those from Ciro Gomes (at the time in the PDT, now affiliated with the PSDB) e Simone Tebet () ended the election without threatening the leaders of the dispute.
For experts heard by Young Panthe blocking of these alternatives occurs because the voter’s choice is guided more by rejection of the opponent than by joining a new project.
“Caiado is very close to Bolsonarism. He would not represent a third way. Zema is also close [do bolsonarismo]but his latest moves would even put him in the idea of moving towards a third way”, says Rodrigo Prando, political scientist at Universidade Presbiteriana Mackenzie.
Elections in Brazil
Historically, since the democratic resumption in 1989, Brazil has dealt with this difficulty. In that election, despite historic names such as Ulysses Guimarães, Paulo Maluf and Mario Covas being in the running, the decision narrowed down between Fernando Collor and the dispute between Lula e Leonel Brizola for a place in the second round. At the time, the PT member advanced by a minimal margin, and was later defeated by Collor (53% to 46%).
At the time, Brizola represented the traditional labor and was seen by many as a “third way” of experience. However, his ideas were very similar to Lula’s and they did not, in fact, represent a “third line of thought”: the two defended a “popular project” against what they called the “elite project”.
Brizola and Lula’s projects, in practice, converged at central points, such as national sovereignty e social justice. The two defended a strong statewhich maintained control over strategic sectors such as energy e telecommunicationsrejecting privatizations.
An article about Brizola’s trajectory, published in 2018, points out that the PED supporter even suggested that the left launch a single candidate in 1989 — Mário Covas — to avoid divisions, but the idea did not succeed.
Even with the friction, pragmatism spoke louder in the second round. For Brizola, it was necessary to defeat Collor’s neoliberal project. It was at that moment that he concluded his support for the PT with a phrase that went down in history: “We will have to swallow this bearded frog”.
“There is a third of the electorate that does not identify with Bolsonarism or Lulipetism, but the third way cannot sell enough of a project to get that vote”, explains Rodrigo Prando.
In the following years, the country consolidated a model of two central protagonists. The most successful attempts to break this cycle have come from:
- Marina Silva (2014): achieved 21.3% of the votes;
- Anthony Garotinho (2002): obtained 17.8%;
Marina even appeared as a favorite to go to the second round after the death of Eduardo Campos, but was surpassed in the final stretch by the traditional clash between PT e PSDB — a duel that was repeated for six consecutive elections, from 1994 to 2010.
The weight of popular rejection
This Wednesday’s Genial/Quaest survey shows that the current dispute is fueled by fear: 44% of those interviewed say they are most afraid that the Bolsonaro family will return to power, while 40% They fear the continuity of the Lula government.
Wilson Gomes notes that this group of independents is heterogeneous. “Declaring oneself independent does not mean being available to vote for any candidate who simply is not Lula or represents the extreme right,” says Gomes.
For the professor, it is unrealistic to imagine that these votes would be automatically unified. “This voter may prefer not to vote, may have lost faith in politics, may reject the available electoral menu or may feel that their ideal candidate is simply not in the running”, he analyzes.
‘Political calcification’
Polarization is also sustained by “political calcification”, a term that defines a debate more emotional than rational. This scenario gained new contours in 2018, when Jair Bolsonaro’s victory ended Tucana hegemony, placing Bolsonarism as the main force of opposition to the PT. “A substantial part of the voter ends up voting for Lula or Bolsonaro not because of identification, but because they are afraid of the other side”, analyzes Prando.
Wilson Gomes reinforces that the decision has been more veto-driven than membership-driven. “Voters vote less because they prefer a certain public policy and more because they want to prevent ‘the criminals on the other side’ from winning”, he explains. According to him, there has been an emptying of the center: “In the last 15 years, activists and voters have abandoned intermediate, moderate and centrist positions, and have concentrated on one side or the other.”
Currently, candidates seeking this space, such as Romeu Zema (Novo-MG), face the challenge of detaching from its original bases. Rodrigo Prando assesses that he and Caiado are still seen as very close to Bolsonarism.
Recently, their different reactions to the case involving Flávio Bolsonaro — who wanted to produce a documentary about his father — exposed nuances. . Caiado, although he demanded clarifications, prioritized pragmatism, arguing that the unity of the right against the PT must be above internal controversies.
The Quaest survey released this Wednesday indicates that . In direct confrontation, the current president has 44% of voting intentions against 38% of the senator.
For Wilson Gomes, the third way would only prosper if one of the hegemonic camps collapsed. “For a ‘neither-nor’ candidate to become the main competitor, the opposing camp would need to start supporting him”, concludes the professor, highlighting that this would only happen “if the natural candidacy of that camp became an impossible cross to bear”.
