João Santana to Folha: ‘Left helps Lula by criticizing him’ – 05/20/2023 – Power

Marketer João Santana, 70, preferred discretion while taking care of Ciro Gomes’ (PDT) campaign for the Presidency in 2022, clashing with the exposure he had when he worked with PT Lula and Dilma Rousseff, until he fell into infamy when he was arrested for Operation Lava Jet.

Santana, generally averse to interviews, received the Sheet in his office, in Salvador, on Wednesday (17), to take stock of last year’s election —which earned him a close friendship with Ciro— and give opinions on the communication of the current government and the legacy of Jair Bolsonaro ( PL).

“The best that the left can do for Lula is to criticize him”, says the Bahian, who identifies with this ideological field and says that it is a mistake to let Bolsonarism monopolize criticism of the president.

Convicted of slush fund money laundering, Santana and his wife and partner, Mônica Moura, closed a plea bargain in 2017. They returned around R$80 million, served sentences in closed and semi-open regimes, wore anklets and still provide community services .

The marketer refuses to mention names for not having proof, but says he suspects the practice of slush funds by other campaigns in 2022. “You develop your sense of smell and notice some movements.”

After so long a recluse, why did you decide to speak now? There is a change in style according to age and maturity. I really wanted to have as little of a role as possible. And because I think there are some things I can contribute to political reflection and communication.

Ciro’s defeat was also a defeat for you, previously accustomed to victories. What it happened? There are several factors. In life, as in politics, some defeats are inevitable. The important thing is how to face them.

Without demerit from anyone, I’ve never had a candidate on Ciro’s level, but at the same time I’ve never experienced a campaign with so many political, technical and conjunctural impediments, scarcity of means and so many strategic and tactical difficulties.

Which? The 2022 election is rightly defined as the election of hate and fear, but I think it was mostly the election of cowardice. For many layers of the population, and unfortunately a large part of them prone to vote for Ciro, from a psychological point of view, cowardice prevailed.

There was polarization, but even those voters with a crystallized vote always had a second option, which was Ciro. But there was the cowardice of voting and him losing, and change, for the comfort they imagined they had acquired under that protective wing of the first electoral option.

And what was the strategy? Ciro had two battles: one internal, within the party, and the other external. To defeat them, he had to do a loud, combative thing. The path was a campaign with blunt, political, moral and administrative discourse, with bold but seductive proposals, and at the same time of permanent combat on both sides. I don’t regret it.

The attacks on Lula were the result of the sum of the grievances of Mr. and of Cyrus, how was it said? When I heard that, I wanted to laugh. Ciro may have grievances for him, but political sentiment was stronger than any grievances of a personal nature.

I have no regrets about Lula. I have admiration and affection for Dilma, but that she could have acted in a more affectionate way personally, not anti-institutionally, during the tragedy that Mônica and I experienced, that could.

Ciro was criticized, including by allies, for his tone against Lula. Mr. Advised you to moderate, how was it reported? Not quite like that. The heat of a campaign and a personality like Ciro’s can sometimes provoke this kind of reaction. It was an emotional campaign, but vigorous and true. It’s hard to establish a certain point of balance when you’re in full combat.

Lulism sowed the mistaken view that, by doing so, Ciro would be competing for Bolsonaro’s victory. This is wrong because we were potentially able to extract votes from both sides. And nobody was able to win in the first round. It was reasoning to justify the need to preserve democracy. And this crooked argument prevails today in a different format.

Which? It is to say: “Look, my people, we are not going to criticize Lula because that is to strengthen Bolsonaro, it is to take a risk”. This is absurd and an enormous evil for Lula and for democracy.

Linking the survival of the democratic system to the good performance of an individual is already proclaiming its fragility. For anyone who wants to help Lula run a good government —and I am one of them, I never want Lula to fail and for a setback to occur—, the best thing to do is to criticize him.

Leaving the monopoly of criticism to Bolsonaro is a mistake because of a mechanical logic: if an element [Bolsonaro] has that power, and the other [Lula] fails, this will lead the move towards the former. Lula cannot be left free, light and loose to make mistakes without warning, without criticism.

and whatwhat are your reviews? There are many commendable things. The government is not bad, it’s just starting, overcoming some difficulties, making some mistakes and forgetting some things.

I think Lula himself said that his government was a transitional one. Where? Need to aim. The great national discussions continue without taking place. Did not occur in the campaign. The only voice that rose was Ciro’s.

Now, the most important thing to do is to improve Lula, not make Bolsonaro worse. Worse or worse? No. [Precisamos] improve what is already good. Lula has good things, but he is a naturally self-indulgent and excessively conciliatory person.

How do you rate government communication? There is a lot of talk that the government has communication problems, but I think that, in fact, communication suffers from government problems. Rarely does a government with a concrete project for the nation and a clear plan of action have a communication problem.

The excessive protagonism of an almost narcissistic leader and the monotonous rhetorical repetition are not enough, just as it is not enough to sell doses of empathy and institutionality. Lula needs to be careful that the discourse of misery does not turn into the misery of the discourse. But the government’s difficulties are also great. You can’t blame communication for everything.

But what are the flaws? It needs to have a more mobilizing communication and defined lines for some sensitive areas, such as: economy, Amazon, evangelicals, military issue, agro. Today, in a world set in networks, a good part of communication has to be segmented, with digital cores. It’s not this hate cabinet story, to pass a negative campaign, but to disseminate content.

How do you see the strategy of the war against the Central Bank? It is doubly successful. From a philosophical point of view, it is correct because BC autonomy in a country like Brazil does not make much sense in the way it was implemented. And, from a tactical point of view, he created an interesting combat point. This tactic of creating enemies to disperse some attention is important. Any government does that. What can also, from time to time, measure the rhetorical action and produce more concrete actions.

His performance with Ciro, who pointed out corruption in Lula and the PT, wasn’t that a weak point in the campaign? I wouldn’t say electorally fragile. It was more embarrassing for me than for Ciro, because associating myself unfairly with corruption, which neither [Sergio] Moro did, it makes no sense.

With box two error, yes, like 99.9% of Brazilian marketers. There is none that I know of who have not received it. After this crusade [da Lava Jato], of the absurdities that were committed against me, I imagined that it would improve this situation. That’s not what I think happened.

Mr. do you mean box two? I can say that there was a campaign in 2022 that marketing didn’t receive a penny of cash, which was ours, but I can’t say that this happened in all of them. I’m not accusing or denouncing anyone, but the signs, rumors, conversations [existem].

Do you have proof? No, but you develop your sense of smell and notice some movement. Don’t ask me who, when, how, I won’t talk, not even under torture. By the way, speaking of torture, I know what it is [referência ao período da prisão e delação].

Lava Jato is a story that is not over yet, not in relation to me, but in everything — both for the alleged transgressors of the law and for those who used the law to transgress.

His presence in Ciro’s campaign made it difficult to support Marina Silva, who calls Mr. of inventor of fake news in Brazil because of Dilma’s campaign attacks on her in 2014? Deep down, she already knew who she would support. [Lula], that she had more conviction of the chance of victory. She wanted a safe boat.

And look at who she is with today: Lula, the PT, everyone who campaigned against her. João Santana was a craftsman, a finisher. Some of the information providers who gave the argument that the Central Bank’s trade is overvalued now have lunch and dinner with her. I won’t say the names.

And she doesn’t know that this João Santana, who she says is this evil character, held back a series of arguments that came with terrible personal attacks against her and her family.

Mr. Do you recognize that after Dilma’s victory in 2014, there was electoral fraud or at least a change of course in relation to what was presented in the campaign? At the time, it was surprising to me. With the intimacy I had with President Dilma and with the top of the government, I was not sufficiently informed of the economic situation during the campaign, on the contrary.

If I had been, not that I would radically change the line of the campaign, but the dosage could have been less boastful, less “polian”, less optimistic. Sometimes, I think that Dilma herself was not fully aware of the situation or at least of an aggravation.

And for 2026, what do you foresee? It’s anyone’s guess. Before 2024, nothing can be predicted. We are going to have the most important municipal elections since 1985. Contrary to tradition, they will be extremely nationalized and this thing of bipolarity will be very present.

Do you intend to work on other campaigns? It’s not that I don’t want to, but I don’t even know the format in which I can return to acting. Today I am seeing some things much more from a theoretical point of view. And studying, writing, making music and taking care of my grandchildren.

---

X-RAY | João Cerqueira de Santana Filho, 70

A journalist by training, he was a political marketer for the presidential campaigns of Lula (2006) and Dilma Rousseff (2010 and 2014) and the PT. He acted in 11 presidential elections, with 8 wins in 7 countries. He is married to journalist Mônica Moura, his partner. They were arrested for Operation Lava Jato in 2016 and convicted of laundering campaign funds. They made an award-winning denunciation and today they still perform community services. Both took care of Ciro Gomes’ (PDT) campaign for the Presidency in 2022. Also a musician, Santana released the album “Suave Distopia” in 2020, with Jorge Alfredo