Datafolha: 63% against the coup within the coup.

For those who thought Brazil had entered a phase of absolute political conformity, the Datafolha poll released this weekend contains an essential revelation. No less than 63% of Brazilians are fed up with Michel Temer's government, are calling for his resignation, and want to go to the polls to choose a new president. These numbers shape the political landscape for the coming period and should be part of future political maneuvering, private conversations, and street protests.  

In a context of visible collapse of the coup coalition that took power on May 12th, in a process that Minister Joaquim Barbosa described as a "staged event," these 63% assume the only acceptable perspective to face the uncertainties of the moment. Against the coup within the coup, yet another faceless "institutional shock" being constructed by the owners of economic and political power who became masters of the Brazilian state with the deposition of Dilma Rousseff, the 63% remember that there is no better way out than direct voting. And it is good that there is no shadow of doubt about it.

After a shameful succession of "institutional clashes" and other situations typical of political wars on the brink of abyss displayed in recent days, it is imperative to acknowledge a historical truth. Only through the recovery of popular sovereignty will the country have the opportunity to replace a bankrupt government in record time with a president elected by direct vote, capable of receiving from the ballot box the immense energy necessary to confront one of the worst crises in the history of capitalism, which is affecting Brazil in a particularly dramatic way.

At this point, the calendar plays a crucial role. According to the Constitution, if Temer is removed from office by December 31st, the calling of direct elections within 90 days is an automatic process – barring a new improvised "institutional shock," this time in who-knows-what institutional laboratory.

In this regard, an esoteric joke is even appropriate. Imagine if, after the interview with the president of the Supreme Federal Court, Carmen Lucia, shown yesterday on the program called "My Stupidity," the actress-writer Fernanda Torres was invited to participate in another event in the Federal Capital. Imagine further, still within this script of pure political fiction comedy, that Fernandinha was called for a conversation at the residence of Congressman Heráclito Fortes, the "Loose Mouth" on the Odebrecht lists – it was there that several meetings took place that led to Dilma's impeachment – ​​and, in the end, left as the new candidate for president of the Republic, chosen by indirect vote. Is it possible?

  Or is it that things are so confusing that I ended up reversing the roles of the two?

  The question is posed. If Michel Temer remains in office after the fateful date, an indirect election by Congress will occur, and the effort to return to democracy will be hampered by more difficult circumstances. To begin with, not only will there be a president in office, a brand new mandate, entitled to benefit from the anesthetizing effect on the population that the unconditional support of the media monopoly usually ensures for its chosen ones, at least for a period.

   In this circumstance, it will be necessary to wage a tough battle in the streets of the country -- and also in the corridors of Brasília -- to approve a constitutional amendment to guarantee direct voting, preventing a government chosen through backroom deals, now without any vestige, however remote, of popular vote, from continuing the plan to recolonize the country for globalized interests, both internal and especially external.

   However much the Christmas spirit may evoke familiar emotions in these "weary retinas," as Carlos Drummond de Andrade said when faced with that obstacle that appeared in his path, an "extraordinary event," I have long since ceased to believe in the existence of Santa Claus. I cannot imagine that resignation is part of the realistic options for a president who assumed power through a coup d'état orchestrated on the basis of dissimulation and betrayal of democratic principles. I don't see how one can expect an "act of greatness" after a succession of petty choices. For this reason, even though the 63% figure points to a comfortable, unassailable majority, it seems prudent to believe that a democratic victory will not occur without a great effort to transform this mathematical reality into political force. 

   In 127 years of history, our Republic has recorded two resignations worthy of the name. One of them, by Jânio Quadros, was an attempt to seize full power in a circus-like acrobatics: abandoning the government in a sudden gesture in the hope of returning to the Planalto Palace in the arms of the people. It was so ridiculous that he ended up being abandoned even by his closest allies.  

   The other was the shot to Getúlio's chest. In 1954, with the unique strength of those who sacrifice their own lives, Getúlio paved the way for one of the greatest popular mobilizations in Brazilian history, capable of blocking a military coup that was in its final stages and ensuring, in 1955, the election of Juscelino Kubitschek's developmentalist government. Nothing compares to the characters and suffering in Brazil this summer of 2016, after two and a half decades of monolithic thinking and the End of History, now in a post-truth rhythm and the flexibilization of principles and rights of peoples and countries to suit the powerful of globalization.

   Resignation, as a response to values ​​such as decorum, honor, and dignity, is part of the logic of governments that rely on some form of popular legitimacy, accepting the notion that it is impossible to govern a country without the support of a segment of society and the agreement of another. This explains why even Richard Nixon, a president whose lack of scruples in the exercise of power speaks for itself, preferred to resign when the Supreme Court got close to tapes proving his involvement in the Watergate scandal. Nixon left the White House with his fingers in a peace and love sign and a smile on his lips—an obvious gesture of reconciliation, even a mischievous one, with the population of his country.  

 The change in this code of conduct common to democracies was the major fundamental alteration produced in Brazil by the coup of August 31st. As expected, from then on, those benefiting from the state of exception do not consider themselves obligated to be accountable to the people. They possess a kind of certainty fueled by self-sufficiency, which makes it difficult to find a civilized way out of their actions. They may resign to save their own skin—behavior that depends, above all, on the population's ability to mobilize in defense of rights and achievements, a process that can lead to abandonment by friends and protectors.

    I can only see the struggle to restore Brazilian democracy as an arduous and difficult process, which may take much longer than the fifteen working days—including Monday the 12th—that remain until December 31st. Its outcome cannot depend on the goodwill of a single ruler.

   This also happens for a number of reasons. The first is that Temer is not, strictly speaking, the owner of his mandate but the instrument of that set of forces that orchestrated a parliamentary coup against an undesirable government. He cannot slam the door and leave, in a sudden act of a prima donna from an opera. Although he assumed the presidency hoping to stay until 2018, and only the incorrigible sycophants of journalism liked to speculate about a re-election that was always unfeasible, the commitments he made imply changes that extend for several decades, perhaps more than a century into the future of Brazilians. They are worth trillions of dollars to the beneficiaries, implying significant changes in world diplomacy and in the distribution of wealth on the planet, in a country that has a GDP comparable to that of Italy and England, with the power to influence the whole of Latin America.

  The second point is political-electoral. The traditional opponents of the Lula-Dilma project have failed to build a realistic alternative to contest the presidency with a chance of winning. From this perspective, Temer's resignation would have a good chance of leading to the return of the forces that governed the country between 2003 and 2016. In today's Datafolha poll, Lula is in first place in a possible first round in 2018. This is no small feat, considering the constant attacks on his candidacy.

 This means that even with a 63% majority, the fight for direct elections could involve a prolonged dispute. From the perspective of those who set the agenda for the Presidential Palace and have the means to execute it, the priority is to guarantee Temer's survival by any means until the fateful December 31st. After that, if there is no other way, it will be necessary to proceed with his replacement, always in an environment of maximum security, without any loose ends or minor deviations that could pave the way for an undesirable popular demonstration. This care has already reached the majority of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), as seen in the effort to preserve Renan Calheiros' powers to conduct the voting on essential measures – starting with Constitutional Amendment Proposal 55. From the perspective of the victors of August 31st, this is the agenda that matters. Whoever is on board with it will hear vows of eternal love and guarantees of performance bonuses.

 ao