FHC's tough choice

Former President Fernando Henrique Cardoso dedicated himself to contesting, in the pages of the British newspaper Financial Times, the article by former President Lula published in the New York Times. The basis of FHC's argument is that Lula distorts reality by presenting Brazil as "a democracy in ruins." For him, the institutions function perfectly and the version that there was a coup and that there is selective persecution of Lula and the PT is a "harmful fiction" for Brazil.

Let's admit, even if only for a moment, that FHC (Fernando Henrique Cardoso) has the right to say that the impeachment of former President Dilma followed the path of legality and that there was no coup in Brazil. In that case, his argument is consistent with the entire coup plot in which the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party) actively participated in the unjustified overthrow of the former president. Furthermore, it aligns with the prominent role of the PSDB in the current Temer government, which is an economic, social, political, and moral failure.

However, the hypocrisy of his argument of the moment never sat well with him, given that the nature of the alleged "fiscal maneuvers," which justified the impeachment, is the same as acts committed during his government and that of former President Lula. Because, concretely, such acts consisted only of changes in budget items equivalent to 0,3% of public spending and the temporary mismatch between assets – of public banks – and obligations of the National Treasury towards them – for credit operations destined, especially, for family farming. Even though this is a settled matter, it is necessary to contest the argument because, through one clever trick after another, the opposition of that time – now the ruling party of an illegitimate government with the highest rejection rate in our history – helped, along with the traditional media, to build the social hatred that has been corroding from within an important sector of the Brazilian Judiciary, which disregards deadlines, ignores due process, despises individual rights and guarantees, and has become the spearhead of the coup. It was this deconstruction of the sovereignty of the popular vote that is filling the sails of the ships of an extreme right and a right thirsty to reach the Presidency of the Republic in rigged elections, without Lula, the primary target of this selective arbitrariness. But no. Life stubbornly refuses to be easy for them.

The overwhelming feeling of revulsion among the people towards Michel Temer's government, and Lula's increasingly admirable and admired resistance in prison, have already turned the upcoming elections into a plebiscite between the forces of backwardness—the eternal elite of Brazil, heirs to centuries of colonialism and slavery—and the vibrant forces committed to democracy, inclusion, and social justice.

This is the point that, deep down, troubles FHC and motivates him to write. He has never quite accepted that Lula managed to preserve economic stability with socially oriented growth geared towards a broad mass consumer market, ensuring millions of excluded and oppressed people the opportunity to access basic rights. Furthermore, he ensured rigorous respect for the democratic rule of law, combined with a policy of sovereign integration of Brazil, which secured the country's greatest international prestige in its entire history. May this socially profound Brazil resist and return through Lula's leadership, "this cannot continue, this will not work".

It is understandable that the selfish Brazilian elite is repulsed by this precise idea of ​​social justice, as they know full well that they will have to bear the costs of rebalancing Brazil's economic and social situation, for the sake of resuming development. They will have to relinquish the tax immunity of their profits and dividends, accept the end of regressive taxation, and watch banks compete with each other in the face of new regulations that will end their obscene profits in a stagnant country with 62 million Brazilians in debt. Ultimately, the people will not foot the bill, as Temer's agenda, the so-called "Bridge to the Future," intended, which promoted a cruel regression in labor and union rights and imposes a permanent fiscal orthodoxy that makes social policies aimed at social inclusion and the distribution of income and opportunities unfeasible.

It is sad to see a person with a respectable trajectory, who stood by Lula in the fight for democracy, as he recalls in his article, supporting this coup and lending himself to this role. And it will be even sadder to see a so-called social-democratic party, or sectors of this party, surrendering to the fascist agenda of the presidential candidate who has been occupying a large part of the PSDB's traditional voting spectrum.

If prudence were still a good companion to FHC (Fernando Henrique Cardoso), perhaps he could have waited a few hours, the hours that separated the sending of his article to the Financial Times and the issuance of the decision by the UN Human Rights Committee, which requires the Brazilian State to guarantee Lula's right to be a candidate, as an indispensable democratic requirement. Thus, FHC would not have had to face the terrible dilemma that now confronts him: defend the international legal framework, which his own government promoted, or advocate for disrespect of this binding and mandatory precautionary measure from the UN.

Democratic credentials are not a framed diploma on the wall, but a living struggle and permanent integrity in favor of the civilizing process. The world knows well how snakes are born, grow, and use the legal framework to kill democracy. FHC, who knows very well what the banality of evil is, should remember this, warn new generations, and reconnect with his democratic past, lest he suffer the implacable scrutiny of history.