So, who betrayed whom?
By boycotting Haddad's campaign, Senator Marta came to be called a traitor. But, in the São Paulo mayoral race, the PT behaved like the fiefdom of a local political boss.
If the PT (Workers' Party) is defeated in the São Paulo municipal elections, which, given the current situation, seems quite likely, the party will have already chosen a scapegoat for its own failure: Senator Marta Suplicy. Since last Sunday, when she missed Fernando Haddad's campaign launch event, even turning off her cell phone, she has been called a "traitor" by PT officials and former President Lula.
The accusation, however, would only make sense if, in the process of choosing the candidate in São Paulo, the PT had behaved as a political party, respecting its internal democracy, and not as a fiefdom commanded by a local political boss. Lula imposed Haddad and prevented primaries from being held in the PT – unlike what happened in the PSDB, which, curiously, is considered an elitist party, commanded by its chieftains. Internal cohesion is born from primaries, even the most contested ones. Only resentment springs from imposition.
Lula will now have to work hard to elect Haddad in São Paulo, which will not be an easy task. His 3% in the polls makes alliances around his name very difficult. Why, after all, should parties like PCdoB, PDT, and PMDB, which make up the allied base in Dilma's government, give up their candidacies if they have, apparently, more competitive names? Furthermore, they are all wary of the "purge" they received from the PT at the federal level.
With Marta Suplicy in the race, the scenario would obviously be different. The race in São Paulo would once again be polarized between the PT and PSDB parties, pitting two administrations against each other: Marta's (2000 to 2004) and the Serra-Kassab duo (2005-2012).
Lula decided to reinvent the wheel. And if the party suffers a humiliating defeat, he will have a name and surname: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.