The truth is that there would be no political, economic, military or diplomatic, internal or external support to sustain the illusions of a third round. The consensus among the relevant actors pointed out that, even among those who were upset by the victory of former President Lula, the attitude of casting doubt on the outcome of the elections emerged as the worst possible solution.
Even stimulating reactions against a possible outcome, favorable to his opponent, President Jair Bolsonaro was forced to accept the voter's verdict, due to the absolute lack of conditions and allies for a movement to question the polls.
Now, the great challenges ahead for those who will govern a divided nation come forward, and the worst thing about it is that Brazil is divided around a false and artificial agenda, as if society were separated by two antagonistic currents, one communist and one fascist, both of them threatening the survival of the Nation, according to the point of view of each of the antagonistic poles. This misinterpretation is completed by the disorientation scheme created by the identity matter, behavior and customs in denial of the centrality of the national point at issue.
The national objectives of resuming development rhythm, reducing inequalities and valuing democracy with incentives to competition and dispute between social groups that subordinate the common interest to an agenda of fragmentation and denial of national cohesion are abandoned.
The new government will have the responsibility of writing the next chapter of national life amid an international situation marked by the instability of the war in Ukraine and the growing geopolitical competition between the United States and a rising China.
The world economy expectations for the near future are loaded with pessimism, risks of stagnation and depression in world trade, likely to result in undesirable consequences for the price of commodities that make up the main items of Brazilian exports.
Brazil will face the great diplomatic challenge of effectively situating itself in the discussions involving the Amazon, an unavoidable issue in the global debate on climate and environment. It should look forward to separating what is legitimate and humanitarian in the concern for forests, from what is mere commercial interests and geopolitics in the biodiversity of our rich Amazon biome.
May the new government find ways to combine national sovereignty over the Amazon with a project for the economic and social development of the region, with the protection of indigenous populations and nature.
