The Escape and the Opportunity for the Right to Distance Itself from Bolsonarism, by Gleidson Carlos

The letter of Flávio Bolsonaro, with coupist insinuations and questioning the result of the elections, found no support even among its main allies. The PL, led by Valdemar Costa Neto, and leaders such as the governor of São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas, did not embark on the adventure. The right that remained in Brazil recognized Lula’s victory and seems to understand that the moment demands political reorganization, not an institutional rupture.

There are two ways to deal with what is considered an injustice: stay and fight or flee the consequences. The political heir of Jair Bolsonaro chose the second. It followed a path already travelled by characters of bolsonarism, such as Carla Zambelli, Alexandre Ramagem, Oswaldo Eustaquio and Eduardo Bolsonaro, albeit in different legal circumstances. The Jair Bolsonaro itself attempted to find an output, but was unsuccessful.

Not even Donald Trump seems willing to buy a new fight for pocketarism. The US president has indicated that he does not intend to get directly involved. The hypothesis of an articulation involving the Argentine president Javier Milei may even fuel speculation about the backstage of Flavio’s departure, but it does not alter the central political fact: the senator left his allies in the face of a crisis that he himself helped to produce.

The letter surprised even early allies. The apparently planned departure from the country contrasts with the discourse of those who promised to face the system and defend their voters. Flavio wanted to present himself as a more moderate and prepared version of his father, but, in the face of defeat, he reproduced the political behavior he said he wanted to overcome.

The discourse of political persecution, repeated to exhaustion by bolsonarism, is no longer sufficient to justify any attitude. Leadership requires responsibility, especially in defeat. Flávio preferred to leave behind the parties, the parliamentarians and millions of voters who trusted in his candidacy.

The Brazilian right now faces a dilemma. Tarcísio de Freitas emerges as one of the names capable of assuming the protagonism of the opposition, but any movement of emancipation from bolsonarismo can be interpreted as betrayal by the most radical part of this electorate.

The democratic right must understand that its survival cannot depend forever on the Bolsonaro family. There is room for a conservative, institutional and competitive opposition. The challenge will also be to manage the presence of parliamentarians elected under the banner of radicalism, some still committed to the rhetoric of confrontation and delegitimization of the institutions.

Flávio Bolsonaro ceases to be the centre of an electoral project to become a legal and police problem, as it advances the investigation of the accusations attributed to it, including possible suspects of money laundering. Accusations, of course, require evidence and due process.

The right will have to decide whether to remain hostage to a family or build a political alternative for the country. As for Flavio, his future no longer depends only on the ballot boxes or party articulations. It depends, above all, on the answers you will have to submit to the Justice.

 

Flavius shows he is just another messiah, with speech of political persecution, by Gleidson Carlos