A brief analysis of the discourse of "new politics"

The rise of Marina Silva, who took the lead in the presidential ticket following the tragic death of Eduardo Campos, was predictable given the electoral capital she demonstrated in the previous election. The question remained about the source of the votes that would fuel her anticipated growth. It turned out that her potential voters include those of Campos and subtract, in that order, the undecided voters, the potential voters of Aécio Neves, and Dilma Rousseff.

In a recent debate on Rede Bandeirantes, Marina Silva's strong performance was noted, but, benefiting from her sudden surge in popularity, she was spared criticism from the other debaters. Thus, relieved of the pressure to present a programmatic content, she stood out for her conduct during the debate, that is, her charisma. Dilma Rousseff, on the other hand, was the preferred target of her opponents, given her obvious status as the incumbent and the candidate best positioned in the polls. Stoic, she dominates the numbers but not so well with rhetoric. Aécio, on the other hand, was the most inquisitive but, firm in his questions, was also not challenged. In a subsequent interview with Jornal Nacional, Marina Silva was, in fact, challenged to clarify essential points of her discourse: one related to ethics, due to the specter surrounding the acquisition of the aircraft used in her campaign while she was still vice-president, and another, stemming from the first, related to the concept of "new politics".

Maintaining a sober demeanor, Marina Silva articulated herself very poorly in her attempt to explain the imbroglio surrounding the acquisition of her campaign aircraft. Even if she individually disclaims direct responsibility for the transaction, she must answer as a user and beneficiary, in her capacity as vice-presidential candidate then, and now as president. The matter, extremely serious in its own right, takes on exponential significance given the strong ethical appeal of her discourse.

The biggest problem, however, stems from his inability to articulate a coherent discourse on the concept of "new politics" because there simply isn't one. First, apolitical discourse in general, and the rejection of political parties in particular, are characteristics of populist movements, defined here as governing outside the institutions that articulate and aggregate social interests and in direct contact with the masses. Second, the discourse of "sustainability," understood here as sustainable development, is nothing new. In Europe, for example, such discourse has been articulated for the last 30 years by single-cause parties. The two antipodal expressions of this movement are the Greens, who, on the left, defend the environment, and the Fascists, who, on the right, oppose immigration. Finally, the term "sustainability" in isolation means absolutely nothing in politics. Applied to the environmental issue, however, it gains political meaning in the so-called postmodern agenda, which aims for economic development associated with the preservation of natural resources. This same postmodern agenda lists causes for diffuse minorities such as civil unions between homosexuals; pro-choice, or control over one's own body, or simply, the right to abortion.

Thus, the "sustainability" advocated by Marina Silva simply does not hold up as a coherent political discourse. The "new politics" proposes absolutely nothing new, and what should be postmodern is only partially assimilated into the environmental cause. Other causes are not only omitted from her discourse but rejected due to her religiously biased morality. Consequently, the articulation of systematically opposing causes brings together, in the same discourse, postmodern and conservative issues.

The electoral effectiveness stemming from the use of abstract concepts arises from the exhaustion of the Workers' Party's continued exercise of power – especially among the middle class; the systematic media deconstruction of this same party – see the Mensalão scandal; the popular clamor for political change – evident in the June 2013 protests; and, finally, the inability of both the ruling party and the institutionally structured opposition to present alternative governance models. In this context, abstract political discourse is seductive because, delivered by a morally immaculate candidate, it cannot be theoretically falsified. Thus, aesthetics prevail over essence.

Cassio Muniz, muniz@uwm.edu He holds a Master's degree in Political Science from the University of Brasília and is a doctoral candidate in Political Science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.