Why Dilma's priority should be democracy and not her presidency.

There are analyses to suit all tastes and preferences regarding how the country can get out of this coup-related mess it finds itself in. Some seek concrete alternatives, even if this implies risks. Others are more interested in making a point, because they only see one path to follow. In this text, I engage with the analysis presented by Valter Pomar, a Workers' Party leader and university professor, who criticized the article I wrote on the subject.

In politics, having only one path and only one Plan A to execute is almost like guaranteeing defeat before the contest even begins.

It's not by acting tough (or stubborn) that you intimidate your opponent. It's by showing that you have the ability to block their initiatives while simultaneously creating conditions to impose a new rhythm on the game.

Dilma was defeated in both congressional impeachment votes, in the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate.

And to return to office he needs 28 votes from senators. Today he has between 18 and 22 votes, depending on who's doing the math.

This is the real situation of the institutional political game.

Dilma was removed from the presidency by a group of thugs led by Temer and Cunha, not because she committed a crime of responsibility.

Knowing this, one cannot imagine that the coup will be dismantled with good intentions alone.

It is necessary to construct a strategy that allows for broadening popular support for "Out with Temer" while simultaneously persuading some senators to vote against the president's removal.

The plebiscite mentioned by Dilma in her most recent interviews is related to this.

Is this the only way out?

Obviously not. In fact, it's important to seek to build others.

And none of them should rule out Dilma writing a Letter to the Brazilian People and Social Movements, for example.

But the solution presented by Valter Pomar in his text is, in short, that it is better to lose than to try to find solutions to prevent Temer from staying.

This phrase says a lot about what Pomar argues: “The fight against impeachment and in defense of the rights attacked by the coup government should not be seen, therefore, as 'the last battle of the old war'. On the contrary, we must see the fight for 'Out with Temer' and in defense of rights as 'the first battle of a new war'.”

This solution cannot be ruled out as an alternative, but it is far too poor to be the only one.

It's beautiful, heroic, and romantic to make powerful speeches proclaiming "they shall not pass." But it's not enough.

Therefore, seeking a new agreement that involves popular decision should not be considered a defeat, nor an elite agreement. It is a way to remove the adversary from control of the game and open new bridges of dialogue with sectors of society that are neither one nor the other. And with the popular sectors that felt betrayed by the Dilma government.

The objective fact is that the crisis Brazil is facing is not trivial, and the solutions to it are not easy either. Therefore, it is more than understandable that at this moment different paths are being considered to overcome it.

But it's necessary to know what each person's objective is on this path. If, for example, the only goal is to save Dilma's presidency, then there will only be one alternative left: to win or lose everything fighting for it.

If we accept that the current balance of power is unfavorable for Dilma's pure return, then suggesting a plebiscite is the only option to avoid throwing away the imperfect democracy we have painstakingly built.

What is certain is that neither shouting old slogans nor using ironic arguments will get us through this difficult and turbulent time. Much more than that will be needed.

Among other things, it will be essential to come down from our high horse and understand that we are not alone in this game.