President Lula and His Dilemma

Brazil’s president, Lula, a prominent political figure known for his democratic ideals, has consistently faced a dilemma: choosing between unwavering defense of democratic values or remaining loyal to his friends and allies within the leftist sphere of governance. If confronted with the choice between a proletarian dictatorship and a military regime as Brazil faced in the 1960s and 70s, Lula would lean towards the former. However, it is important to note that this choice would involve opting for one form of dictatorship over another.

In other contexts, how would Lula react when faced with a dilemma between defending democracy or supporting left-wing governments? It is crucial to understand the notion of a dilemma. We encounter an ethical dilemma when confronted with a situation where two desirable and ethically necessary options are mutually exclusive: choosing one means betraying the other. In Lula's case, he finds himself torn between loyalty to democracy and fidelity to the left. By choosing one, he betrays the other, creating a moral conflict regarding his commitments to both democracy and the left.

Undeniably, Lula's left-wing ideology and his connections with other authoritarian leaders often overshadow his words and actions. The sympathies of Lula and his party towards dictators or authoritarian rulers are evident, ranging from favorable loans to governments in Cuba and Venezuela to downplaying the dictatorship of Daniel Ortega in Nicaragua, and even establishing a Brazilian embassy in North Korea and engaging in bilateral trade agreements with the country.

An emblematic situation that exemplifies this dilemma within Brazil itself occurred during the “Mensal?o” scandal, where Lula prioritized "governability" and his ideology above respect for democratic principles, allowing the buying of votes from congressmen. This questionable choice undermined trust in democracy and eroded its foundations.

Currently, Lula's dilemma resurfaces as he downplays the dictatorship in Venezuela and seeks to protect his left-wing counterpart, Nicolás Maduro. When questioned about Venezuela being a dictatorship, Lula responded: "Let me tell you something, the concept of democracy is relative for you and me. I like democracy because it allowed me to become the president for the third time”. He also claimed that Maduro was a victim of a "narrative that was built against Venezuela”. This stance reveals his preference for prioritizing the left over the defense of democracy.

It is crucial to consider the implications of this choice. By relativizing democracy and justifying authoritarian governments in the name of defending the left, Lula not only compromises democratic principles but also undermines the trust of the Brazilian people in his commitment to democracy. This stance can have profound and lasting consequences for the country's political and institutional stability, potentially legitimizing opponents who would also prioritize defending their ideologies over the defense of democracy.

Considering this scenario, it is necessary to question to what extent Lula genuinely defends democracy. It is concerning to observe that when faced with the choice between loyalty to the left and the preservation of democracy, his priorities seem to lean towards the former.

Brazil and its citizens deserve political leadership that prioritizes unwavering defense of democracy, even in the face of difficult decisions. The choice between democratic values and ideological loyalty should not be a dilemma but rather an unequivocal commitment to democracy as the foundation for building a just and free society.