Using the lemon of the coup as a weapon, Lula made the lemonade of democracy.

Many people wonder if Brazilian voters will vote again for their tormentor, the traditional conservative right-wing politician who has legislated in his own self-interest for so many decades. The information is that 90% of the legislature are running for reelection.

This profile of the 'self-made politician', that character who begins their career in some small town with a precarious speech of 'vote for me, please', is part of Brazilian political culture, so deeply ingrained that it permeates the entire social fabric of the country. But not only that. The profile of the 'self-made politician' is all too human.

The phenomenon of cronyism described here doesn't only occur in small towns, of course. But there it serves an educational purpose and contributes to a technical analysis of the scenarios being drawn up for this peculiar 2018 election.

Before delving into the psychology of the boorish politician, our 'administrative standard-bearer' since the official colonial era, it is necessary to consider that there are many exceptions to the rule, of course. And there are quite a few. Strictly speaking, they prevailed for 13 years in the macro sphere, a sphere that is somewhat less 'isolated' than the micro spheres.

One could say, bluntly: in the countryside, conservative politicians are amateurs and offer us the lowest level of human behavior: it's the most half-baked social Darwinism of the species. In the big cities, conservative politicians are professionals and play the dirty game of economic power associated with organized crime. It's social-financial Darwinism 4.0.

Micro and macro, these instances are self-explanatory and characterize Brazil's accordion-like management. It's impressive that anything still works. But, without lamenting, after all, it's the behavior of the species; there's no escaping this fatal reality. Human beings are not known for their 'generosity,' and this has been the case since Jesus Christ, who, incidentally, tried unsuccessfully to change that.

In short, we are all part of this sweet journey towards self-extinction called humanity – without wanting to be dramatic, but already being so. We can, therefore, use the first-person plural to speak of Brazilians, without major complications: we, the Brazilians, are directly responsible for the political class we have.

We, the post-doctoral armchair scholars, puppets of the subservient PSDB party; we, the worker-fans, slave-friends of the CBF (Brazilian Football Confederation) and the footballing crests of the capitals; we, the scab teachers, from the public and private sectors, who accept working in terrible conditions (and with a 19th-century pedagogical conception); we, the housewives, who work more than all paid professionals, but who watch our soap operas and boost the revenue of a television network that helps crush the country with its menu of mediocrity applied for more than 50 years.

Us.

Obviously, it's not forbidden to use 'they', especially since the term is in the dictionary and is part of standard Portuguese, with its proper meaning licensed by history, usage, and – excuse me – institutions.

Let's agree on this: when we speak of historical responsibility for the grotesque and backward aspects of our society, let's use the first person plural – so that this helps us to have humility and allows us to recalibrate our actions, as well as know how to fight the enemy that dwells within our own spirit.

When we move into the arena of sovereign political dispute within electoral spaces, however, may we also have the courage to use the third person plural, 'them,' to identify the external enemy that inhabits the same country and the same society (this is a wish, not an observation).

Hence the famous 'us against them' mentality, legitimate and also instructive, since not every nation has an entire segment of its own organized into parties of enemies of the state and the community.

Let's call them (with apologies for the awful mesoclitic placement): centrão + PSDB + MDB (just to start).

There are many intellectuals at Flip who choke when you say 'us against them'. They try to pose in the outdated clothes of neutrality and non-partisanship. They are the advanced agents of the criminalization of politics and a simulated ideal of civility.

It's embarrassing, but amusing. They – 'they', mind you – are just a part of the cowardly indigence that, in turn, also inhabits ourselves – to a lesser degree, perhaps – let's have the humility to say. Let's pat 'them' on the head and move on.

The topic here is the psychology of the Brazilian voter, let's not lose sight of that after this heartfelt and almost amusing digression.

Our political tragedy begins with the voter who votes for a 'friend'. This is the antithesis of the concept of collectivity and public management. It all starts with 'voting for a friend'.

The next stage is: “Okay, I voted for my friend. Now I want 'reciprocity'. Now I want a position. Now I want him to pave the road to my property. Now I want him to redo the urban zoning near my property. After all, what kind of friend is that?”

Herein lies the 'political pedagogy of the interior'. It all begins like this. Those who complain most about governments invested with legitimate and democratic collectivity are these crony voters. They don't even have a deep-seated aversion to democracy because they don't even know what democracy is. It is the voter endowed with this primitive psychology who has sown in himself hatred for the PT and the left – he didn't really have much to do with such a limited intellectual repertoire.

This type of practice spreads to large urban centers on a larger scale. There, the favor isn't paved roads or the forgiveness of unpaid taxes. There, the stakes are much higher. The house jumps from millions to billions. Let's take Paulo Preto, Dersa, Rodoanel, and Geraldo Alckmin as just initial examples. Or: it's no joke, Brazilian fans.

The dance of friends and favors in administrations with billion-dollar budgets is on a different level. Even the parties are different. They don't serve beer and barbecue, like in the small town of Seu Zé, a friend of the mayor. They serve champagne and caviar – and what good taste businessman João Doria has! He's a gentleman.

Therefore, Brazilian politics, in its primitive psychology, is not a monster with seven heads to understand sociologically. It's a one-headed monster.

Let us therefore accelerate towards the conclusion of this almost letter to the voter.

First conclusive premise: this logic was broken by the democratic governments of the PT (Workers' Party). The PT staged a coup, but a coup against cronyism in politics. This is a statistical and historical fact.

In fact, what caused defections in the PT was precisely the break with the cronyism politics: Helio Bicudo didn't get the ambassadorship in Zurich that he so desired, Heloisa Helena didn't get the space she wanted in the Chamber of Deputies, Marta Suplicy couldn't impose her candidacy for mayor of São Paulo in 2012, Marina Silva didn't accept sharing the strategic planning of the Amazon with Mangabeira Unger.

Many former ministers were also bitten by the bug of resentment towards the PT (Workers' Party), as they were forced to accept the collegial logic of actions. Since they couldn't impose their respective internal impulses to push their ideas and projects, they left the PT governments speaking ill of the PT governments – and falling into the good graces of the persecutory press, always with great prominence.

Second premise: this new way of doing politics – the elimination or reduction of 'crony' politics – frighteningly efficient (just look at the social and economic statistics from 2002-2015), has created a legion of orphans of cronyism. It was, in fact, devastating.

These orphans, of course, were duly directed towards class hatred, which had been germinating or lying dormant for centuries. All that remained for them was the act of hating, since the pure and simple logic of 'give me what is mine' was being exterminated.

Third premise: the orphans of cronyism were duly organized by the press and Rede Globo, which gave them a voice and the delicate, fraudulent figure of legitimacy. They are the puppet protesters, those bizarre characters who paraded Sunday after Sunday to reclaim 'a country' back, the country of favors and 'deceive me, I like it'.

Having established the concluding premises – since this is an article that opens the door to discussion and not the other way around – it is necessary to outline a brief electoral scenario of reaction to this entire political-libidinal circuit that is finding its new "enough is enough" cycle.

Voters traumatized by this clash of conflicting interests tend to respond with respect for the civilizational regression of which we were both victims and perpetrators.

He will react for a rather simple and objective reason: life was better during the time of democratic decision-making – therefore, during the time when cronyism was being fought against.

Even the middle class, so accustomed to the logic of favors exchanged between 'friendly politicians', cannot resist an atavistic desire to 'return to a past' that was better, in every sense.

This is evident in the Vox Populi poll, in a rather touching way, with the middle class increasing its voting intention for former president Lula by 10 points. There's not much to discuss about this (Lula's overwhelming growth, humiliating for the coup and for Globo).

Therefore, the electoral landscape that is emerging on the horizon is not one of perpetuating the power structures, the elite, and political patronage. All of them are being rejected by voters, as evidenced by the voting intentions a candidate like Alckmin is showing 67 days before the first round.

It remains to be seen whether progressive segments will seize this historic window of opportunity for renewal in chambers and major offices. It's not enough for the situation to be favorable: a strategy is needed to take advantage of this favorable environment.

The Workers' Party (PT) has been the most intelligent party in this scenario. Why? Because it presents concrete results from its political action. Namely: Lula has 41% of the voting intention and leads the electoral process. This 41%, however, did not appear out of nowhere. It was the party's work (the acts for democracy, the interviews, the caravans, the debate) that made this scenario possible.

The PT (Workers' Party) decided to be more consistent and took a turn further to the left. Let no one doubt the following statement: the PT is good at elections. It has the vocation, the passion, the knowledge, the added value, the experience, and it has an icon who, to the misfortune of the coup and backward conservatism, made a huge lemonade with the lemon that fell into its hands: political imprisonment.

Lula is riding the wave of this favorable electoral landscape for him and the left because he is connected to the real debate unfolding in the country, a debate that isn't being covered by the mainstream press (it's happening in the blogosphere).

That's what sets Lula apart from the others. Besides his intelligence, he has a more refined and calibrated understanding of the political and electoral landscape, and he has had this for over 30 years.

It should be noted that this character, so omnipresent in Brazilian life, drags the entire perception of the electorate towards a massive vote for candidates from the progressive wing, in a conjuncture balance between the repulsion of the coup and the weariness of the failed economy.

Like in the best magic schools, the enchantment that Lula provides to both supporters and 'anti-supporters' transcends the traditional logic of perception. From the old popular expression 'when life gives you lemons, make lemonade', Lula did more: with the lemon of the coup, he made the lemonade of democracy.