While Lula (PT) bet on mobilization on the streets and online, Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) sought to avoid risks in the final stretch. Whoever wins will have to face economic, political and institutional challenges.
The campaigns of Lula (PT) and Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) adopted different strategies in the second round, after evaluating the results of the first stage of the presidential election.
Lula intensified the mobilization on the streets and on social media, with the participation of André Janones, while Flávio sought to reduce exposure and avoid mistakes in the final stretch.
Regardless of the result, the next president will have to face an economic scenario that requires adjustments to public accounts and choices about where to concentrate his political capital.
If he wins, Flávio will have to reconcile the agenda related to Jair Bolsonaro's judicial situation and the clashes with the STF with the challenges of governing.
Lula, in turn, will face difficulties in negotiating his agenda with a mostly conservative Congress.
In addition to political and economic disputes, the result of the election will define who will have the power to make appointments and influence strategic structures of the State.
The campaigns of Lula (PT) and Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) entered the second round as two teams that went to the locker room, evaluated the mistakes of the first half and returned to the field with different strategies. But it was President Lula's campaign that needed to recalculate the route more deeply, after the scare with Flávio's performance in the first round.
The president's reaction focused on two fronts: streets and networks. On the streets, supporters tried to reissue a kind of broad front, along the lines of 2022. In the digital environment, the campaign intensified the mobilization, with deputy André Janones taking the lead.
The assessment was that it was not enough to contest the electorate through traditional means. It was necessary to gain space on social media, where an important part of the electoral battle takes place.
On Flávio Bolsonaro's side, the strategy was practically the opposite: do less to make fewer mistakes. The impression conveyed by members of the campaign is that of a team that sees itself at an advantage, touches the ball sideways and looks at the clock, waiting for the referee to blow the whistle.
The order was to avoid risks and contain the anticipation of discussions about a possible government. Allies were already talking about ministries and occupying positions, a movement that the coordination sought to stop. The assessment is that the greater the exposure in the final stretch, the greater the risk of making mistakes capable of compromising performance at the polls.
There is still an important element in this dispute: the weight of the public sector. Just as Jair Bolsonaro (PL) counted on the structure and visibility of the Presidency when he sought re-election, Lula also contests the election with the political advantages of whoever occupies the position.
But, once the election is over, the challenge will be different: governing.
Regardless of who wins, the next president will face an economic scenario that will require adjustments and reorganization of public accounts. The two campaigns made promises that will have to be confronted with fiscal reality. And the account, even for those who are in the humanities, is easy to understand: it doesn't add up.
This means that the next government will have to set priorities and choose where to spend its political capital.
In the case of Flávio Bolsonaro, there is an agenda that he himself has already placed among his priorities: the situation of his father, Jair Bolsonaro. A possible attempt to get him out of prison, the discussion about amnesty for those convicted of the attempted coup d'état and the initiatives to impeach ministers of the Federal Supreme Court (STF) are topics that would require intense political articulation.
And a government cannot fight all the battles at the same time. Each negotiation requires time, building a majority and spending political energy. The question is how much space would be left to face the country's economic and administrative problems.
In Lula's case, the challenge would be to govern in front of a National Congress with a mostly conservative profile, with a correlation of forces unfavorable to the president. Negotiation with parliamentarians and the formation of majorities would be permanent obstacles to approving his agenda.
There is also a third point, less visible during the campaign, but fundamental to understanding what is at stake: control and influence over strategic structures of the State.
The result of the election will have consequences for the command of investigative bodies, such as the Federal Police, for appointments to Public Ministry positions that depend on the Presidency and, throughout the term, for the occupation of strategic positions in public banks, boards and other federal institutions.
These are choices that go far beyond the distribution of positions. They influence the functioning of the State, the conduct of public policies and the relationship between the government, control bodies and research institutions.
Therefore, the election does not just decide who will occupy the Presidency of the Republic. It also decides who will have the power to make recommendations and influence the direction of strategic institutions in the coming years.
If the campaigns spent the second round trying to make less mistakes, the winner will have to start the government making difficult choices. And, above all, deciding which battles you can buy.
