Predicament of Lula, Minority President

About a year and a half after taking office, approval of Lula’s government ranges between 36% and 38%, according to major Brazilian research institutions, while disapproval ranges between 31% and 40%, depending on the institutions. The government of his predecessor Jair Bolsonaro at the same point in the president’s term had an approval rating of 32% to 35%, while disapproval ranged from 33% to 43%. This is not a good result for Lula, considering that Bolsonaro was the only Brazilian president not to be re-elected recently.

Lula maintains a high approval rating of over 40% among the poorest Brazilians. However, in the so-called new middle class (which was born primarily as a result of the social policies of the previous PT, Worker’s Party governments), as well as in the consolidated middle class, approval and disapproval levels are very similar to the rating among the rich – around 27%.

What exactly is going on?

Lula has certainly not lost the charisma that attracts his followers. Politically, over the decades, he has endured corruption scandals, mismanagement by his successors, conviction and imprisonment for corruption.

In his first year in office, the economy grew more than under the previous government, and the country rose from 11th to 9th in the world rankings. Unemployment and the percentage of people living below the poverty line have declined. Median household income rose 11.5% to the highest in history. The government succeeded in approving a tax reform project considered vital to the country but which had not moved forward for many years. Added to this is the huge loss of his predecessor, who was implicated in corruption scandals and sentenced to disqualification for 8 years for crimes related to abuse of power. Moreover, many Bolsonarist supporters were involved in the January 8, 2023 coup attempt.

Why then, despite all these winning cards, does Lula face such a decline in support?

Context aids understanding. The center-left Workers’ Party (PT), despite winning the presidential election, was unable to overcome the hegemony of the Brazilian right. Lula remains hostage to a parliament in which 50% of MPs are right-wing, compared to 30% left-wing. While the PT government currently enjoys relative sympathy from much of the press, it is largely defeated on social media, which represent the main opinion leaders for much of the Brazilian population. Conservative Christianity, very militant and violent, fuels a constant battle against the left because of identity struggles and debates about moral values and social behavior.

Despite being cornered by the courts, Bolsonaro, who claims he is being persecuted for political reasons, managed to organize a demonstration in his defense in São Paulo with 185,000 participants and another in Rio de Janeiro with 32,000 demonstrators.

The decline in support for President Lula thus has less to do with what his government has or has not done than with its inability to overcome the hegemony of the right.

From this point of view, this is not only a problem for Brazilian PT. The strength with which Trump is making a comeback in the United States, Milei’s victory in Argentina, the resilience of nationalism, and the rise of right-wing voters in several European countries point to a well-known global phenomenon, but poorly publicized by its opponents.

The 20th century was marked by political recognition of the social needs of the poorest, the need for equality and respect for human rights. These were political programs favorable to left or center-left parties, to strengthen states with strong social commitment. Today, all these issues have not been satisfactorily resolved, but new needs have emerged. And the limitations of the welfare state in many countries are becoming increasingly apparent.

In this bigger picture, Lula and his PT look outdated, unable to reconcile old and new needs, practicing a style of politics that cannot guarantee the necessary victories. Politics that insist on the belief that welfare benefits and increased family consumption are enough to win elections.

Lula and his party believe that their difficulties stem only from a communication problem related to misinformation promoted by the right and political pressure from parliamentarians hostile to their proposals. They fail to notice the changes in the cultural field, where conservative groups have learned to compete on equal footing with minority identities. Nor do they show that they have realized the need to rethink economic policy, as the “Latin American approach to development” has already proved exhausted across the continent.