O that podemos fazer?

In the 60s, 70s, and early 80s, the Brazilian left experienced a period of intense popular mobilization. Unions, grassroots church communities, progressive intellectuals, the UNE (National Union of Students), and other movements organized around common agendas, uniting resistance against the dictatorship, the fight for rights, and the construction of alternative power structures. This progressive cultural climate resulted in the creation of the PT (Workers' Party), the MST (Landless Workers' Movement), and a series of movements that supported a political practice geared towards social transformation. The strength lay at the grassroots level, in direct contact with the masses, and in giving voice to the common people.

Today, the reality is quite different.

The precariousness of work, changes in the union structure, the end of the CEBs (Basic Ecclesial Communities), and the transformation of the PT (Workers' Party) into a more institutional than grassroots party have emptied the popular militancy.

The intellectual left has fragmented, occupying academic or digital spaces, while a significant portion of the youth and working classes find more references outside the progressive field, often in conservative religious discourse or in the base populism of the right.

 Lula, in power, calls for mobilization, but finds silence. What was once a vibrant response has now turned into apathy. Without the pressure from the streets, he is left with parliamentary negotiation, pragmatism, in a terrain dominated by the Centrão (center-right bloc) and conditioned by the financial market.

The government is forced to concede in order to maintain structural progress. It is obliged to make concessions to preserve achievements that alleviate the lives of the people, but which do not break with the logic that perpetuates inequalities.

The dilemma is clear: without a mobilized population, there is no profound transformation, but reorganizing the masses requires an effort that confronts both political inertia and the resistance of a social landscape very different from the past.

Lula remains under pressure to "make ends meet," trying to secure the bare minimum and tame the dragon alone, while the absence of a truly engaged mobilizing vanguard leaves open the question of how to rebuild a popular force capable of sustaining profound and real change.

Without critical awareness, there is no lasting mobilization. Activism cannot be merely reactive or dependent on leadership, but must arise from a permanent educational process, such as that previously promoted by the Basic Ecclesial Communities (CEBs) and the liberating pedagogy of Paulo Freire.

Lula, alone, cannot carry this task. The government needs a mobilized people, but the people only move if they feel they are participating in a project that belongs to them, that speaks to their hearts and their faith in the future, especially when it comes to young people.

The solution lies in rebuilding a broad, supportive community network.

Mobilizing the grassroots today requires recognizing that the world of the 70s and 80s no longer exists.

Factories, strong and centralized unions, Basic Ecclesial Communities (CEBs), and student activism spaces no longer have the same centrality or appeal.

Society has become fragmented, work has become more precarious, and channels for mobilization have largely migrated to the digital environment. Therefore, those who wish to regain popular power need to combine tradition and innovation.

Mobilization can stem from movements that know how to engage with the daily lives of the population, including neighborhood community organizations, residents' associations, cultural and artistic collectives in the peripheries, social movements linked to housing, the environment, youth, and gender and race issues. It also involves new forms of unionism and organization in precarious sectors, such as those in which motorcycle couriers operate, and solidarity economy networks.

Churches that still maintain a social and liberating commitment remain strategic spaces.

Furthermore, digital networks are now an unavoidable terrain: within them, it is possible to inform, engage, contest narratives, and create a sense of belonging that, if well-guided, can translate into effective action in the streets.

As for who can lead, there is no longer room for a single vanguard, as there was in the past. It can emerge from different poles: political parties with a real commitment to the grassroots (like the PT, but also other left-wing parties), consolidated social movements like the MST and MTST, community leaders who have legitimacy in urban peripheries, popular artists who engage directly with youth, as well as organic intellectuals capable of translating ideas into accessible language. Experience shows that the MST, for example, knew how to reinvent itself, engaging with urban youth, environmental issues, and new forms of organization, a valid example for all other movements.

Ultimately, mobilizing today means re-enchanting the people with politics, showing them that it's not just a distant game in Brasília, but something that touches real life: the price of food, the quality of schools, neighborhood safety, the possibility of dreaming. Without this, any call for mobilization will sound empty.

Lula alone will not be able to do it, but if social movements, parties, artists, religious leaders, and digital collectives come together, it will be possible to rebuild a popular fabric capable of sustaining real transformations.

First, it is necessary to rebuild popular communication. Digital networks should be filled not only with institutional content, but also with simple narratives close to everyday life: income, food, transportation, housing, and security. This communication needs to be done in accessible, creative, and affective language, using humor, music, short audiovisuals, and popular role models, especially from the periphery.

Next, it is essential to reactivate the community dimension. Social movements, cultural collectives, NGOs, and pastoral groups can organize neighborhood meetings, solidarity work parties, discussion groups, and cultural events that bring people closer together. This direct contact creates bonds that virtual reality alone cannot sustain.

The third step is to invest in political and civic education, but adapted to the present. This means in-person and digital study groups, live streams, podcasts, and short materials that explain, for example, how the public budget works, the impact of the financial market on social policies, or the reasons behind certain reforms. Here, Paulo Freire's pedagogy remains a reference: no one makes anyone else conscious; consciousness is born from dialogue.

Fourth, it is necessary to build unifying agendas. In the past, there were clear, grand causes: redemocratization, the Constituent Assembly, the end of hunger. Today, it is necessary to define banners that mobilize across the board: employment, reduction of the cost of living, access to quality health and education, environmental protection, and the fight against violence. These agendas must be formulated in concrete terms that show how the people are directly affected.

Finally, it is essential to coordinate leadership. There is no longer a single vanguard. It is necessary to unite the MST (Landless Workers' Movement), MTST (Homeless Workers' Movement), unions, cultural collectives, community leaders, student movements, progressive sectors of churches, organic intellectuals, and digital communicators. Each speaks to different audiences, but if they all converge around common agendas, the mobilization gains strength.

Politics alone is not enough to sustain long-term mobilization; it is also necessary to nurture dreams, hope, and utopia, because, as President Lula rightly says, only in this way can we believe "that another country can be built!"

From now on, this will be my sole theme.