The clumsy choice of Hugo Motta to report on the anti-factional project and the hasty opinion of Rep. Guilherme Dirit (Popular Party) allowed the PT and the government to win the first battle in public opinion, but Lula’s re-election depends on changing the subject.
The thinking of the majority in Brazil about public security is separate from what the president and his party think. In the popular imagination, it is operations like the one in Rio, which resulted in hundreds of deaths, that would reduce the prevalence of fraud and mobile phone theft – even though PCC and Comando Vermelho have nothing to do with these crimes.
Residents applaud practically any measure to tighten the fight against crime. Classifying factions as terrorist groups? “Forget the experts, this is a great idea!” Even the General Security Election Commission, which perhaps 99% of people barely know what it means, has widespread support in society.
The assessment of the federal government in the region improved slightly, thanks to the quick response (led by Secom) and the mistakes of opponents, who, in search of simplified proposals to fit cards on Instagram, ignored the opinion of police officers and prosecutors who are considered an authority in the fight against the PCC.
It was fortunate for the PT that Motta politicized the project by choosing the secretary who should be Lula’s opponent in 2026. He “betrayed” the government, but it also divided the right. The appointment of a protégé of Tarcisio de Freitas to lead the negotiations meant that other governors who dreamed of the presidency went to Brasilia to defend the postponement to “improve the proposal”, looking for a leadership role on the issue.
However, insisting on this topic is not the best strategy. The government made a mistake in requesting that the vote be postponed due to technical difficulties. He wanted to kick his beleaguered opponent, but the matter would be better dealt with in the Senate, with less spectacle, and a change in the topic of public debate.
Lula’s re-election depends on a booming economy, social programs, tax justice rhetoric, and the end of the 6×1 journey, not on defending the benefits of prison.
Current link: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click on the blue letter F below.
About The Author
