Bolsonaro is not leader of the opposition, he is a tourist in the US, says president of the Republicans – 03/11/2023 – Politics

After having been part of the base of the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government and having supported the defeated candidacy for re-election, the president of the Republicans, deputy Marcos Pereira (SP), criticized the then ally for having left Brazil after losing to Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (PT).

Pereira said in an interview with Sheet that Bolsonaro became a “tourist” in the United States and left the position of leader of the opposition vacant when he left the country.

The former president traveled to Orlando (USA) on December 30, 2022 and still has no date to return.

“If he were leader of the opposition, he would have to be in opposition here in Brazil. He is a tourist in the United States”, he said. “You only do present opposition. You have to be present to do opposition.”

In the interview, the leader of the Republicans did not rule out the possibility of Tarcísio de Freitas (Republicans), governor of São Paulo, running for the Presidency in 2026. For Pereira, if Tarcísio had run instead of Bolsonaro in 2022, he would have won Lula.

Elected for his second term in the Chamber, Pereira also criticized the beginning of the Lula government, but praised Fernando Haddad (PT), the current Minister of Finance.

After the electoral defeat, who is Bolsonaro? Are you the leader of the opposition? I don’t think so, because if he were the leader of the opposition, he would have to be in the opposition here in Brazil. He is a tourist in the United States.

Who currently plays this role? I think it’s vacant. You only do present opposition. You have to be present to make opposition.

Is Tarcísio occupying this space? Not yet. He is starting the Government of São Paulo.

Mr. Do you think Bolsonaro is over? I don’t think so. There are people who like him, who idolize him, who love him, but there is no power vacuum. If you leave that space empty, someone occupies it. And as he, in my view, is leaving empty space, someone will occupy it. Tarcísio can occupy, but it’s still early.

Tarcísio benefited from the polarization in São Paulo and Bolsonarism… I don’t think so. They are different things. Tarcísio was elected because São Paulo never elected the PT to the state government. Tarcísio has his merits. I will say something else: if Tarcísio were the candidate for president —and not Bolsonaro—, he would be the president of the Republic, not Lula.

Did you try to do that? No. Because the [ex-]president [Bolsonaro] had every right to be a candidate for re-election, as [ex-]President Dilma [Rousseff] he was also entitled.

But among the allies, did they think Tarcísio would be better? There was a perception, and some qualitative research has demonstrated this by Bolsonaro’s record. It’s his style.

We have to respect his style, but that also brought the burden of losing the election. I have been saying behind the scenes, in conversations with politicians, with businessmen, that Lula did not win the election. It was Bolsonaro who lost.

Mr. speaks in style, but that made Bolsonaro investigated by 8 de janeiro. Mr. Don’t you regret having allied with Bolsonaro? I had no other option.

Didn’t they try to build Simone Tebet, a path to the centre? It wasn’t viable. We have been on this road for some time and have a political feeling. The disappointment with the polls that we had in 2018 we did not want to repeat in 2022. Because Geraldo [Alckmin, ex-PSDB] it was our big bet and it had 5% of the votes [em 2018]. We had two options. Stay neutral or support Bolsonaro.

But having no choice makes Mr. see how right to be next to the former president? As I said, 80% of the agenda, now maybe 70% of the agenda was convergent. But when Tarcísio joined the Republicans, I couldn’t help but support Bolsonaro. It’s kind of automatic, right?

Mr. Do you see Bolsonaro’s responsibility for the anti-democratic acts of January 8? I don’t want to talk about it because it’s under investigation and I’m not an investigator.

We are talking about the speech he used in the campaign against the polls, of not recognizing defeat. It may have contributed, but then want to give him a mentorship, say that he fostered it?

Was he wrong not to call Lula and admit defeat? If it was me, I would have called and acknowledged it. But if he made a mistake or not, it’s not up to me to judge, right?

It was his supporter. In his place, I would have called and acknowledged—but I’m not him. I acknowledged the election at 8:28 pm on Sunday, October 30th.

Mr. said that Lula did not win, Bolsonaro lost. Why did he lose? Lost for this whole story. In March 2019, I said: the president needs to step down from the podium.

An error has not occurred. There was a succession of mistakes, as President Lula is also making mistakes in a way. When you win the election, you have to govern for everyone, which is what Tarcísio is doing in São Paulo.

Was Roberto Jefferson decisive for Bolsonaro to lose? Carla Zambelli too? Calm down, I’ll get there. See, when he [Bolsonaro] wins the election, he continues to clash, harassing journalists, women. The pandemic comes and he does all that vaccine fight, against science. And already at the end, he clashes with the Judiciary.

So, when he doesn’t seek harmony between the Powers, it generates instability. Towards the end, yes, Carla Zambelli with the gun in São Paulo, there was Roberto Jefferson… I think that this also hurt, yes. Until the Saturday before Jefferson, in all our polls he had a small difference, but he was ahead of Lula. From then on, there was this…

There was minimum wage too. oh the [ex-ministro da Economia Paulo] Guedes talked a lot of nonsense. He said that even a maid goes to Disney, that a janitor’s son goes to university. Everyone knows that I was a critic of Guedes, not personally, but conceptually. And this one about the minimum wage also helped a lot [a derrota]. So all those factors added together.

Isn’t it easy to say that now, after he lost? Everyone knows, I was never very close to the president, I would even like to have been, to have frequented Alvorada more. I tried, but I couldn’t, I don’t know why. But I know that many people have tried to advise you.

Maybe he didn’t want to listen. Or some he heard. Our support for Bolsonaro was for the agenda, not for the person. And the Bolsonaro government, in my view, with all the mistakes, had many successes. With all my criticism of Guedes, it was also very successful.

Mr. You said that Lula is making mistakes, what are the mistakes? I have always expressed concern about Lula’s election, mainly in the economic agenda. We know that the program of the party that elected him is less liberal, more statist. Besides, I asked myself, are we going to have a Lula from 2002 or from 1989?

Is there a Lula who will defend his ideas or a Lula hurt by everything that happened, with revenge? And then when he says that the privatization of Eletrobras was banditry, he is calling Congress a bandit. That doesn’t help.

And a good part of these congressmen are there. When he or someone from the government or the party signals that they might want to revoke the labor or social security reform, it is worrying. The problem lies in what is discourse and what can be practice. Time will tell.

And the new fiscal framework? It has to be done, we are in favor of it. Let’s wait for the text, let’s wait for the idea, the proposal, to position ourselves.

What about tax reform? Same thing.

Has the Minister of Finance, Fernando Haddad, been a good articulator? Haddad has positively surprised me. I was somewhat worried when it was announced, because I live in São Paulo. I have criticisms of his tenure as mayor. But now, as the Minister of Finance, from what I see and hear from the productive sector, he has positively surprised everyone. I hope it works out, because if it works out, it will be good for Brazil.

How do you see President Lula’s relationship with evangelicals? He has a certain difficulty traveling in that environment. I understand, from what I hear, that they want to get closer.

It’s possible? Everything is.

How do you evaluate this episode with the jewels, which involves the former president? I’m watching on television.

He has to return the jewels that were left with he? If I were President of the Republic and received gifts like this, I would have given them to the Union collection.

About Michelle, Mr. Do you think she can fill this void for Bolsonaro, if he becomes ineligible? It’s her party chairman’s wish [Valdemar Costa Neto]. Between desire and conditions, there is a way to go.

Do you see Tarcísio in better shape than her? Tarcísio, I think that because he is governor of the relevant state of São Paulo, he may have more conditions. O [governador de Minas Gerais, Romeu] Zema may have conditions, [o governador do Paraná] little mouse [Júnior] may have conditions.

Do you think it is possible to get out of this polarization by 2026? No Unfortunately. Since redemocratization, the country has been polarized. But it is increasing, it is reaching a level that is warlike.

No space for the center in 2026? There may be, it will depend on how the government will be. But I think it will be difficult.

Between Zema and Tarcísio, who has more conditions? It’s too early to say that.

Mr. will be a candidate for the Presidency of the Chamber in 2025? This needs to be discussed further on.

---

X-RAY

Marcos Pereira, 50 years old
Born in Linhares, in the interior of Espírito Santo, he is a lawyer, graduated in law from Unip (Universidade Paulista) and master’s degree from IDP. President of the Republicans since 2011, he was Minister of Industry, Foreign Trade and Services in the government of Michel Temer (MDB). He is a licensed bishop of the Universal Church. He is in his second term as a federal deputy.