The film announced for 2019 has already been seen. And the audience rejected it.

Betting on division under the promise of unity in a hypothetical second round is to conspire against the interests of democratic construction.

With the World Cup over, as it already is for us, and with the decidedly un-republican party negotiations concluded, we will still have to wait for August 31st, the opening date for radio and television programs, which is when the election campaign truly begins.

Meanwhile, before, during, and after the election, we will experience an anticipated legal battle that could transfer the election of our future leaders from the people to the courts.

The nature of this battle can be measured by the display of authoritarianism, judicial violence, and illegality that defines the 'black Sunday of Brazilian justice,' as the last day, the 8th, will be known, when a decision by an appeals court judge, favorable to Lula and technically perfect, was overturned by another appeals court judge acting on the instigation of a lower court judge, who was on vacation in Portugal and no longer involved in the case.

What awaits us is a deepening crisis of popular sovereignty, coupled with the taint of illegitimacy that strikes at republican institutions and mortally wounds the Judiciary.

The crisis of representative democracy is evident and worsening day by day, manifesting itself in the composition of Congress, the illegitimacy of those holding executive power (which has been rendered irrelevant), and the actions of the Judiciary, which is violating the Constitution it is supposed to safeguard, deciding against its clear wording, and encroaching on the powers of the Legislative and Executive branches.

The Judiciary, from the Supreme Court to the lower court judges, is experiencing its worst moment, including from an ethical standpoint.

Announced around June 2013, today's political and institutional crisis began with the impeachment. The resulting Temer government is an abomination rejected by 82% of the population, earning him the well-deserved title of the world's most unpopular president.

And everyone knows the fragility of our democratic life, shaken in the Republic by so many coups d'état and dictatorships (all accepted by the Judiciary), an authoritarian democracy coexisting with governments of legal exception, at the service of the dominant class, an economic elite detached from the interests of the people, the nation and development.

The most recent opinion polls and voting inclination surveys, both from Data Folha and CNI-IBOPE (CfThe State of São Paulo. (30/6/2018), report an unprecedented lack of interest from the electorate, triggered by countless factors, among which the most prominent is disenchantment with politics, politicians, and parties.

This disenchantment, or disappointment, or frustration is the raw material for the dangerous feeling among ordinary people that politics is not the way to solve their problems, a feeling that is all the more ingrained when the facts, and especially the version of the facts, reveal officials detached from their popular mandate, lost parties, and politicians and public officials associated in illicit acts.

The point here is not to predict what might result from this state of anomie, but it is important to remember that, throughout history, it has been the red carpet upon which the 'saviors of the nation' walk.

As a result of this widespread national frustration, collective disillusionment, and hopelessness, no less than 33% of the electorate, according to polls, have declared their decision to renounce their right to vote and choose the president who will lead the country for the next four years, with a mandate to extend the term. status quo or break with it, opening the paths to lost hopes.

According to these same polls, former president Lula would have 33% of the electorate's preference, followed by Captain Bolsonaro with 15%, the latter crowned with a rejection rate of 52,2% among those interviewed. In a scenario without the former president and without a Workers' Party candidate, the two candidates who emerge for the race would be this captain (17%) and Marina Silva (13%), who together would total 30% of the votes, both defeated, however, by abstention, which would be 34%.

Their parties together do not have ten federal deputies.

Confirming the party's failure, the MDB candidate (the largest party in the Republic) would not exceed 1%, according to the polls guiding us, and the PSDB candidate, the former governor of São Paulo (campaigning for years), does not surpass 6%, his starting point and, so far, also his finish line.

None of these names are in a position to lead the country in the reconstruction effort that the national crisis demands, and any one of them, like Fernando Collor in the past and Dilma Rousseff more recently, lacking a party base and a parliamentary majority, will become easy prey for the next Eduardo Cunha.

Analysts also say that the PT, MDB, and PSDB parties will see their parliamentary representation significantly reduced, while the 'lower clergy' will experience even greater growth, confirming the statement attributed to Ulisses Guimarães, who said that 'the next legislature will always be worse than its predecessor'.

Representative democracy is therefore threatened by a presidential election without candidates and without political parties, that fundamental element of politics and democracy, which is becoming extinct in our country, condemned as mere acronyms without opinion or plan.

If the gears of power already in motion manage to grind down the candidacy of former president Lula, 34% of the electorate will be excluded from the election, and they will hardly identify with the new order. The president elected under these circumstances will suffer the consequences of the electoral absence of the clear leader in the polls, and will hardly be able to govern, and the crisis of 2015 will take hold in 2019 with the repercussions that we can all already foresee.

With less than a hundred days until the election and just days before the party conventions that will officially nominate the candidates, 41% of the electorate say they have no candidate, which amounts to a declaration of dissatisfaction with the candidates. Taken to the extreme, this could render the election illegitimate, and without this, but depending on its pronouncement, it will not be possible to pull the country out of the political and institutional crisis in which it is immersed.

In a democracy with nearly 150 million voters, we are heading towards a strange electoral contest, without parties, without leaders, without candidates.

There are many well-known reasons that led to the impeachment of President Dilma Rousseff, but the starting point was her narrow victory in the 2014 elections, leaving her defenseless against a hostile Congress manipulated by a gang of thugs.

The film, which was announced to premiere in 2019, has already been seen, and the audience rejected it.

How can one govern without a parliamentary majority, or subjected to the anti-republican rules of 'coalition presidentialism' (the cynicism of 'politics as it is'), in which the execution of the government program approved in the elections is left to the disloyalty of those who opposed it in the election?

Circumstances demand that the new president must, first and foremost, be a national leader wielding a program that garners the support of the masses, beyond the electoral period. The crisis calls for a strong president capable of confronting the erosion of institutional legitimacy, able to unify the people around a concrete project, capable of cleaning up the crumbling government and leading the work of national reconstruction.

He will need a majority in Congress, but he will also need the militant support of the masses. To avoid being a new version of his predecessors, he will need the objective conditions to govern, imposing himself on the other branches of power through, for example, the approval of his government program by plebiscite.

We need elections that restore the legitimacy of representative democracy, which, in an apparent vicious circle, depends on the legitimacy of the election itself.

It is within this context that left-wing organizations are floundering, moving without making any progress, without seeing the contours of the general crisis, and the ongoing project that does not target this or that left-wing party, this or that candidate exclusively (although they target the PT and Lula with so much hatred), but which intends to banish from national public life the figures, organizations, thought, and values ​​of the center-left, whether or not they are identified with the PT and the Lula and Dilma governments.

It is in this scenario that the organizations of the Brazilian left, each one increasingly intoxicated with its own navel, focused on the dispute for hegemony over nothing, shortsighted in seeing the great crisis that could engulf them all, opt for electoral division when they could be politically unified, at least on fundamental issues, among which stand out not only their survival, but above all the interests of the country.

Betting on division under the promise of unity in a hypothetical second round is to conspire against the interests of democratic construction, a challenge that concerns everyone.