If Palocci wins, Dilma loses.
The president could be labeled as complicit in wrongdoing, contrary to what she promised.
The name of former Chief of Staff Henrique Hargreaves is trending in Brasília. Less for his work in the cabinet of President Itamar Franco – a government still misunderstood in relation to the advances it promoted in the country – but rather for the attitude he took in the face of an accusation that personally involved him. As Senator Ana Amélia Lemos, from the PP of Rio Grande do Sul, pointed out, Hargreaves stepped down from the same position that Palocci holds today to prove his innocence in the face of accusations of irregularities in the exercise of his duties. A fellow countryman of Itamar, with whom he is a personal friend, Hargreaves became Chief of Staff on October 5, 1992, and remained there until November 1, 1993, when, in explicit agreement with the then-president, he left to defend himself against the accusations. He spent a year, as they say, out in the cold, but returned with a cleansed soul on February 8, 1994, remaining until the inauguration of Itamar's chosen successor, FHC, on January 1, 1995.
Through his actions, Hargreaves helped to establish the public image of Itamar's government as one of austere and tough management, with public servants acting in a, shall we say, more unorthodox manner. It stuck so well that, with Aécio Neves's help, Itamar, in a white suit, was elected senator for Minas Gerais last year. Among the politicians currently in office, he is the one who can least be criticized in terms of "he steals but gets things done," "he doesn't steal but lets others steal," "he pretends not to see or remember," and others. Itamar has the moral authority to speak louder when the subject is combating wrongdoing in public administration.
Playing with the force of the government's juggernaut in Congress, in cahoots with the PT governors and shielded from the media by the actions of advisors and lobbyists of the caliber of the recently hired FSB, the current holder of the position, Antônio Palocci, has everything to remain in office. But will he maintain the same moral standing in the country? And how much will President Dilma pay, politically, for accepting Palocci's desire to cling to the position?
As president-elect, in December, Dilma said in an interview with Bandeirantes TV that she would in no way be complacent with wrongdoing. In September, also from the Civil Cabinet, her friend Erenice Guerra was dismissed by President Lula due to accusations about a huge family scheme involving public funds. At that time, because he risked losing the election, Lula did not hesitate much before dismissing her. Once this was done, Dilma's campaign got back on track and she won.
Ultimately, Palocci stays because there are no elections coming up. But to the same extent that he can claim victory in the short term, Dilma has nothing to celebrate. Now and in the long term, she herself will be seen as complacent. What in Japan could end in suicide and in the United States in jail, here in Brazil already results in damage to a president who hesitated at the first chance to do what she promised in the face of poorly explained cases like this one of the 20-fold increase in the assets of one of her associates.