Less than one week to the elections in Brazil, the country is in a serious economic and political crisis and divided into two candidates. But which one of them is the best to insure Brazil’s “order and progress”?
The world political context is now organized around a dispute between globalists and anti-globalists. In this vein, concrete alternatives to the old liberal-bourgeois and the bourgeois pseudo-polarization’s between “right” and “left”, have emerged in various countries of the world.
There was some hope that Brazil would be politically synchronized with these international tendencies and therefore, there would be some great alternatives, unrelated to this pseudo-polarization, that could lead to a direct connection with the people’s interests, skipping the representative illusions, from which a new legitimacy could be founded – to challenge the interests of the “masters of the world”. To this one’s, the bourgeois media has given the name of “populists”.
But for me, “populism” is only the real democracy, that is, the concrete and effective harmonization between the people and their leadership, to serve the interests of the masses by a charismatic leadership, aware of the failure of representative mechanisms and that, therefore, it dialogues directly with this same folk. So-called “populism” is thus the main form of real and organic democracy in our time.
However, in case there is a second round dispute in the presidential elections between Jair Bolsonaro and Fernando Haddad, we can say that these hopes will not materialize. Neither of these candidates are a real alternative to liberal bourgeois polarization’s. The two candidacies are nothing more than simulacra organized around staged and absolutely inauthentic spectacles.
From a purely practical and realistic sense, one could say that, in some way, this could even be expected because of the political immaturity and the ease in which the Brazilian people are generally manipulated by media impulses. Like a cattle, the Brazilian mass hangs, whether to the right, or to the left, voting more in opposition to some political “demon” than on account of any prospective platform or any knowledge in politics.
But from a more ideal perspective, from a pure national potential and interest, Brazil in fact would not deserve a second round.
Haddad is the eternal promise of “social justice,” never materialized, always postponed, and which conceals behind all his staging, the mind control of the little bourgeois academician or the “favela” criminal. The left will be voting in another “destroyer of economies”, who promises to reconcile with the neoliberal forces of Michel Temer, for the purpose of “barring Bolsonaro” – which in his mind is the “absolute evil”.
Bolsonaro is the promise of an alternative to the “old politics,” but a promise long overdue, sold, delivered, and reconciled with that same old policy. Behind Bolsonaro’s all-embracing prestige are the same old interests that have guided Brazilian politics and the economy in the recent decades: bankers, rentiers, NGOs, think-tanks, elitists. The “hard” speech hides an extremely loose man, without self-opinion, and who easily bends to any “demand” coming from his “gurus.” Anyone who votes for Bolsonaro will do so as a cattle, guided basically by “anti-petism” (PT – far-left party) and an anti-left sentiment, even disagreeing with his candidate’s plans. All that matters to these is to “bar the PT and the left”, the “absolute evils”.
But another policy (and with that, another election) would be possible. If there were a candidate who embodied the most essential demands of the people, which permeated social justice and security, economic sovereignty and public morality, and who understood the great international moment that we are facing (of dispute between the interests of the free peoples of the world and the global projects of social engineering and capitalist totalitarianism’s of the international elite).
Another Brazil is possible. The potential of that country is endless. A country with a rich sub-soil, rich in raw material and capable of becoming a “potencial” in the business of natural resources. Brazil could be big, sovereign and prosperous.
But not with Haddad and neither with Bolsonaro.
Based on an article from “Nova Resistencia”.