Tijolaço: Estadão believes that the will of the people is a problem for democracy.

By Fernando Brito, from brick - The day began while it was still dark, and exhaustion sets in after almost 18 hours of work. But I can't let pass the shame of today's Estadão editorial, "relativizing" democracy.

In defense of its "competitor"—who believes that?—Folha de S. Paulo, caught red-handed falsifying research reports to claim that 50% wanted Michel Temer to remain in government, the once venerable, old-fashioned newspaper comes out with the gem of an editorial whose title is already an anti-democratic confession: "The majority also makes mistakes."

In it, he acknowledges that "all the research carried out after Dilma Rousseff's temporary removal from the Presidency of the Republic reveals that the majority of Brazilians, about two-thirds, understand that the best political solution for the country at the moment is to hold early presidential elections."

Furthermore, "acting president Michel Temer has not yet won the majority trust of the population."

Modesty aside, they show that confidence in Temer is around 10%.

Nevertheless, the editorial states that "the defense of early direct presidential elections may serve the interests of Lula's Workers' Party. It is also confused with the feeling of revenge, the 'out with Temer' sentiment. People of good faith, but misinformed, still dream of these elections; dissatisfied with the situation, but ignorant of the prerequisites necessary for calling such an election."

Curiously, the "necessary prerequisites" for the impeachment process, the crime of malfeasance, can be solemnly ignored and transformed into a mere matter of "popularity."

Then comes the most cynical reason: "The main argument against the idea of ​​'direct elections now,' however, is that it would imply keeping the country paralyzed for at least half a year, with the deterioration of the economic crisis, which is demanding urgent and effective measures to ensure that the first timid signs of recovery gain momentum from the political stabilization that will probably occur from September onwards, after the Senate approves Dilma's impeachment."

In other words, "the market"—or rather, the promises and expectations of the market—are the reason for abolishing popular sovereignty.

It's the old "paternalistic-authoritarian" story that "it's not the right time" or, as I heard so many times during the dictatorship, that Brazil "wasn't ready for democracy yet."

What is the problem with adapting the Constitution so that the people can vote outside of the normal voting period?

Is there any intention to amend the Constitution to remove the minimum spending requirements for health and education?

Do you not want to implement a minimum retirement age?

Do you want to abolish workers' rights?

The goal is to avoid creating new taxes, even if it means altering the Constitution, right?

Why can't it be amended to allow for this simple and sacred thing: the people choosing their government?

Estadão, which published a cake recipe the last time we went through an authoritarian period, now wants the Brazilian people to swallow the cake they helped bake.

If the polls show that he doesn't want it, then screw the polls, because Estadão now thinks that the will of the people is a problem for democracy.