The British magazine The Economist published an editorial arguing that President Lula (PT) should not run for office in 2026. According to the publication, although Brazil demonstrated the resilience of its democratic institutions in 2025, the country “deserves better choices” in the next elections.
In August, the magazine featured on its cover Jair Bolsonaro (PL) and the trial that convicted him for leading a conspiracy. In an opinion piece titled “Brazil Offers US a Lesson in Democratic Maturity,” he described the conduct of criminal proceedings against the former president and his allies as an institutional response that would counter widespread criticism in some sectors of the American right.
In the editorial published this Tuesday (30), the magazine states that the main reason why Lula, 80, abandoned the race is his age. According to the text, four additional years in power would constitute a risk for a leader now in his eighties. The Economist cites the case of former United States President Joe Biden as an example of the political and institutional costs of running for office at an advanced age, even though it acknowledges that Lula appears to be in better physical condition.
The magazine also discusses the Brazilian president’s recent health problems, including brain surgery carried out in December 2024 following an indoor fall. If re-elected, Lula will leave office at the age of 85.
“For all his political talent, it is simply too risky for Brazil to leave someone this old in power for another four years. Charisma is no shield against cognitive decline,” the publication asserts.
Another point raised is the wear and tear caused by the corruption scandals linked to his first mandates, which, according to the publication, still weigh heavily on part of the electorate. The editorial also criticizes the government’s economic policy, described as unambitious and excessively based on income transfer programs, while recognizing advances such as the reform to simplify the tax system.
“Even though Brazil’s economy has grown surprisingly fast in recent years, Lula’s economic policies have been lackluster. They focus mainly on helping the poor, with income-raising measures increasingly hostile to business, although he has also pleased employers with simplified tax reform.”
Despite the criticism, The Economist says Lula remains the favorite because he does not face competitive opponents from the center and left. According to the text, the president failed to prepare a viable successor and ended up discouraging potential candidates. The Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad, is mentioned as a name considered, but who would have been ruled out due to lack of electoral appeal.
A Datafolha survey carried out in June showed that, while the candidacy seems fair to the majority of Brazilians, it is rejected by 57% of those questioned. For them, Lula should not seek re-election, compared to 41% who support this approach.
A survey by the same research institute in December showed government approval stagnating. 32% of respondents consider management good or excellent, while 37% consider it bad or terrible and 30% consider it regular.
On the right, the editorial believes that Bolsonaro still exercises political influence and is trying to transfer his electoral capital to his son, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL-RJ).
“Flávio is unpopular, ineffective and would almost certainly lose a match against Lula,” says the magazine.
The Economist names the governor of São Paulo, Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicans), as the most competitive alternative, who appears better placed in the polls, even if he has not yet formalized his candidacy. According to the editorial, Tarcísio would represent a younger option with greater institutional commitment.
“The president would be doing his country a favor and cementing his legacy – something Biden has not done – by announcing he will keep his promise and withdraw from the race,” says The Economist. If this does not happen, the text concludes, it would be up to the right to reorganize around a name capable of overcoming the political polarization of recent years.
About The Author
