Pedetist presents as opposition “post PT”, says that, from 100 days of government, will begin to charge the new president and declines to comment crisis in Ceará
Anup Fekadu
Giselle Bezerra, a companion of Ciro Gomes, receives the report in the entrance hall of the large apartment in which the couple lives on the beach of Iracema, in Fortaleza (CE). The room, with stunning views of the sea, has simple furnishings. Gisele comments that this was the last area of the house to be furnished. The veranda was transformed into a playground for the distraction of the youngest son, Gael, which Cyrus had in his previous marriage, and who spent the year-end with him. In one of the walls, photos of the 4 sons of Cyrus and some of the couple in Europe. Five minutes after my arrival, Cyrus enters the room with a beard to do. He says he took the vacation to rest the skin of his face. He says he is studying astrophysics and writing a book about the political and economic paths that are being put to Brazil. Throughout the interview, he demonstrates that he will try to occupy the position of the main opposition leader. “The PT is gone. Now they’ve found someone who has the guts to face them. I am post PT, “he says. Asked about the upcoming elections, says that the party can consider its name in the dispute to the presidency, but it is early to talk about the subject, because the next four years will be a roller coaster. But he admits that it is necessary to build not a third way, but “the way”. He also confessed that he advised Lula to seek political asylum at an embassy.
The interview with Ciro Gomes was made on January 2. On Day 4, the advice of the pedetist was sought to talk about the security crisis in Ceará, ruled by his ally Camilo Santana (PT). Ciro said he preferred to wait a few days to have more information and be able to issue his opinion.
Question. In the inaugural speech, Bolsonaro spoke of freeing the people of socialism. What did he mean by that?
Answer. The disturbing thing is that he said that in the inaugural speech, which is usually designed for history. It wasn’t supposed to be a podium arrob, but what he repeats is a podium arrob that part of the premise of the ignorance of the people. He assumes the people are stupid, incapable of knowing what socialism is. And, in stating this, it hides in the word socialism all the conservative rancidity, which has two plans: conservatism of customs and economic conservatism. It’s a tragedy, because it means that the comrade, when he starts the government, announces that he will remain on the podium. It keeps saying superficial nonsense and asserts itself in a superficial antipetism.
P. Bolsonaro said he won’t accept corruption. But before the inauguration, your family was already involved in an alleged corruption scandal. Now that you’re president, wouldn’t it be nice if this case was cleared up?
A. It is imperative, especially for those who have settled in their identity the moralism and that has the symbolic presence of (Sérgio) Moro, an exhibitionist judge, the moral caning of the nation. And he has practical things: Bolsonaro, as a congressman, has already missedthe money from his office. The case of Queiroz, now, is a potential crime news. It’s a matter of morals and decency to clarify that. Even because this was the cornerstone of the campaign that gave Bolsonaro the mandate as president. If Bolsonaro lent the money to this Queiroz, where’s the check? What day was it? Was this a new operation in Uruguay like Collor? Was it before or after the scandal, to try to cover the episode? If it was a loan, where did Bolsonaro’s money come from to borrow it? These are concrete things pertaining to the president. Sérgio Moro is obliged to clarify this to the Brazilian nation. I want to take a break. I don’t want to be a trumpeters like a rabid petitist, who’s the most like a bolsominion. Let Bolsonaro take his feet. But in about 100 days, I have a whole platform I’m going to start charging. Because this is the role the nation has given me. The role of the opposition is to stimulate bolsonaro to the democratic game, forcing him to follow Democratic institutionality.
Q. Do you think Bolsonaro will build a governability pact to approve the reforms in Congress?
A. He has that strength. The coincidence of the change of year with the change of government predisposes the Brazilian society to help. Parliament is vulnerable to this expedient street that says, “Help man! The man has been elected, he helps him, he does not hinder. ” And we have to have that sensitivity. Not in respect to Bolsonaro, but in respect to the millions of Brazilians who gave him the majority. But I don’t know if he’ll be able to make a governability pact. I, Ciro Gomes, do not know a single proposal from the Bolsonaro government.
P. Except the legalization of weapons.
A. The rhetoric of the legalization of weapons is there, but I doubt the legality of it by provisional measure. The supreme will tend to say it’s unconstitutional. Bolsonaro works with two agendas. One he will reign more easily, which is the agenda of Customs: reduction of the criminal majority, facilitate access to the weapon, aggravate the legislation of criminal enforcement. Because society is tired of violence and predisposed to experiencing innovations. They are simplifying, coarse misconceptions, but he will try and, with that, will demonstrate that he is trying to fulfill his promise and keep his political capital with a certain survival. The other agenda, which is for which we should call it, is that of the employment, word that he has not quoted once, nor in the official discourse. We should call it to the question of interest, the default of 63 million Brazilians who have the dirty name in SPC. To discuss the issue of retirement. We need to discuss those matters that he will flee from them. Here are two problems: the first is that they are very serious issues. The second is that he doesn’t understand the problem, his team doesn’t understand the problem and, when he understands, he misinterprets. Therefore, the remedy they will propose is the wrong remedy, which will tend to aggravate the socio-economic disease of Brazil rather than mitigate it. It would be a serious mistake for us to accept Bolsonaro’s provocation of discussing identitarisms. The overwhelming majority of the Brazilian people, who are poor, are unemployed, frightened by violence, abused in the health network… These people tend to understand our reasons if these reasons are discussed. But if we’re going to argue “gay kit”… Not that the subject does not deserve discussion. I’m just saying Bolsonaro can’t choose the battlefield.
Q. You have put yourself as the new leadership of the opposition. Would you accept the PT in front of opposition to the new government?
A. I think so. Our enemy is not the PT. Now, we need to not compromise. I’m talking from the historical point of view. We need to give the young Brazilian a platform in which he does not need a savior of the homeland, of a guru, of a charismatic leader who, imprisoned, from within the chain, keeps sending a message. That’s the bottom of the pit. It doesn’t mean we leave Lula. The central issue of the country cannot be identitarist or save Lula. As long as the agenda is this, we’re doing exactly what Bolsonaro wants us to do. He wouldn’t win in any way in Brazil that I know of if it wasn’t for the antipetism that Petism has cevated. The Palocci is a confessed defendant. And he’s not a peripheral petitist. It was the man that Lula chose to command the economy of Brazil for 8 years and Dilma chose to command the government. Levy was chosen by Dilma. Michel Temer was chosen by Lula. If we keep smoothing these things for the pain that Lula has to be where he is, let’s not think about the Brazilian issue. It’s up to the opposition to watch, charge. What does the PT bureaucracy do? Withdraw from possession. Now, when Aecio Neves denies the recognition of Dilma’s electoral success, the platform of the coup begins. And the PT knew how to report it. How is it now explained to the Brazilian people that an opponent of ours, as deplorable as it is, is not recognized as victorious?
Mr. P. was a member of the Lula and Dilma governments. Why have you only now discovered these problems of PT?
A. I was part of the first mandate of the Lula government. When they started to make mistakes, I didn’t accept being a minister anymore. I voted for Dilma against all contradictions, because the other side was the PSDB and Aetius, which I knew who it was. What did I do this time? I said, campaign for them I don’t do anymore. I voted for Haddad as a citizen, but I no longer vote in this PT bureaucracy. I don’t campaign with them ever again. From there they corrupted themselves. This is the sad, hard, and suffering reality. Rotted. They took pleasure in the blessings of power.
Q. Why did you, who have been so many times along with PT, not supported Haddad?
R. Why I had already done this with Dilma. In the back, Dilma was a person without any training, without any experience, never disputed an election. And Lula, taking advantage of the fair popularity he had, decided to impose Dilma against all of us. We were, with a predilection for research, Eduardo Campos… And the PT had no painting. And he chose a person who was not traditionally from PT. Why is that? To order. All the stones on the road knew that Lula couldn’t be a candidate for the law of the Clean slate. And they impose the candidacy of Lula, lie to the Brazilian population exploring the good faith of our poorest people to see him to the limit of the election and put a person without authority.
Is P. Lula a political or common prisoner?
A. Common prisoner. If Lula were a political prisoner, he didn’t have to resort to the courts. Lula is not convicted by Sérgio Moro, which I have always criticized. He is convicted unanimously by the Federal Regional court. Tried several features in the STJ and STF. So by definition, it’s a common prisoner. But if he understands he’s a political prisoner, he couldn’t be resorting to formal instances. I find the sentence that condemned him fragile. But that doesn’t turn him into a political prisoner, because he’s accepted the momentum. I, for example, have been violently criticized – and that the PT forgets – when I proposed, when he suffered an unfair coercive prison, illegal, that if we thought he was a political prisoner, we should subtract him from this arbitrariness, put him in an embassy and Ask for political asylum.
Q. What do you imagine for your future?
A. My mission today is to help the young Brazilian understand our country and formulate a path. I am doing lectures and I will launch a book that is a platform that understands Brazil, calling the debate for intelligence and not for these superficial mystifications. Because the beast more like the bolsominion (pejorative name for the followers of Bolsonaro) is the fanatical petitist. For both the bolsominion and the PT fanatic can happen the devil they relativize the devil. When Aetius denies the legitimacy of Dilma’s mandate, it is a coup. When Renan Calheiros, leading the Senate, makes the coup… it is a coup. Then Haddad has an ally of Calheiros. Here, in Ceará, Eunício de Oliveira, my opponent, and with whom I fought because of the PT, because voted in impeachment, was coup. Now, Lula prevented Dilma from being a candidate here in Ceará, for which she had been invited and had accepted, to impose it in Minas Gerais where she disassembled the alliance of Fernando Pimentel, to support the Eunício Oliveira. To whom Lula and PT gave 1 billion reais in contracts without bidding at Petrobras. Go to hell with the PT bureaucracy. All the pickling of the pure. Sergio Machado put his hand on Transpetro, I got tired of telling Lula that. So, PT, go slow with me, because I would not like to turn the PT into my opponent.
Q. But you’re transforming…
A. I’m not, no. But every time they come up with one of these, and now it came from your question, not because you interpret, but because they’re saying, I’ll tell you why I could no longer support the PT. I swallowed everything I could swallow. And I rejoiced.
Q. Do you not think that in the dispute between Haddad and Bolsonaro it was not important to support Haddad to avoid the setback in Brazil?
R. It wasn’t in my hand. When they imposed themselves, the way they were imposed, all the research indicated very clearly that this was a lost election. Everybody was watching this. Haddad had 70% of the vote in the second round here in Ceará. So I supported Haddad. What I don’t do anymore is campaign with this gang. It’s quite different. If I thought it would make a difference, I’d swallow it again, like I swallowed it back there. Now, compel me, for a solidarity with the Progressive field… Haddad is progressive, no doubt. But the PT is a corrupt force. I’m talking about the PT dome, not your base.
Q. How is the union of opposition forces in Congress?
A. It’s a practical agenda. They decided to omit in possession. We stayed. You mean we have some kind of commitment to Bolsonaro? Not. We have a commitment to democracy, with rites, with values.
Q. But doesn’t that weaken the progressive field?
R. Depends. Why does PT not behave? Why don’t you open the conversation with the others? He wants everything in the imposition of a rotten hegemony. It’s gone. Now they’ve found someone who has the guts to face them. I am post PT.
Q. Do you think you’re too charged for this?
A. I am, but I’m willing to explain to everyone. And in this is that I want to create a chain of opinion, that free Brazil from this corrupt bureaucracy of PT.
Q. Did you ever talk to Lula before the first round to be his deputy?
A. No. He called me to this farce. Now, if I’m reporting a scam, a fraud, and he calls me to perfect this fraud, what kind of a man am I, what kind of leader would I be in Brazil if I, by any kind of personal ambition, would fulfill this filthy role? I told him to tell him I was insulted.
Q. Do you intend to be a presidential candidate again?
R. Who knows Brazil, who has the experience that I have, affirm that he is a candidate, is pure temerity. What’s going to happen in the country for the next four years is a real roller coaster. I accept that my party considers my candidacy, I will not exclude this, but I think I have a role to fulfill out of electoral process. Writing, talking, organizing the movement. Give reference to the Brazilian youth. There’s only Bolsonaro because there’s this kind of petism. Do you think that Bolsonaro found what this childish, undemocratic, dumb attitude of the PT would omit from the solemn act of possession of the President-elect? You think Bolsonaro thought it was bad? Bolsonaro loved it. He’s saying, “The government can’t fail because if the PT doesn’t come back.” And they love each other, in practice. And I’m going to break this joke, if not Brazil can’t handle it.
Q. Do you believe it could be the third way?
A. Not the third way. We need to build the way. Yes, because the PT imitated, in good and bad, the PSDB. Fernando Henrique was the one who formulated in Brazil. and formulated in line with the international wave, neoliberal, pseudo modernizing, minimum state, floating exchange, primary surplus… And what was the economic policy of the PT? Strictly the same. You mean it wasn’t a good government? It was so much that I helped. The minimum wage improved, credit improved, social assistance, with compensatory social policies, improved a lot. Expanded University public education. All these are good things, but were made in the framework of a conservative political economy that filled the tail of the banker to make money. It is in the hands of the PT/PSDB that Brazil makes the most serious banking concentration of the capitalist world. While North America, the epicenter of capitalism, has 5000 banks disputing the customer with cheaper interest, with cheaper fare price, these people handed over Brazil to three private banks, which has a profit 78% higher than any bank in the history of Humanity. That’s what’s important. Because in a non-inflationary regime, the money that is lacking in the people’s pockets, this delinquency that humiliates people so much, that’s the money being taken all to the hands of the bankers. During the PT/PSDB government, we created the following phenomenon: Six Brazilians have the income equivalent to fortune totaling 100 million Brazilians. Then these 100 million Brazilians are obliged to conform to the Bolsa Familia. Is that irrelevant? No, it’s very important. But the country that I dream of is going to emancipate its people by decently remunerated work and emancipating education.
