This Wednesday, Ciro Gomes registered his affiliation with the PSDB in a ceremony attended by the most extremist figures of the Ceará right-wing, such as André Fernandes and Capitão Wagner.
Joining the PSDB, a party contaminated by the far-right and with an ultra-liberal history, caused an uproar in local and national public opinion, as the former minister is a well-known figure in the country, having participated in several presidential campaigns.
The biggest concern, however, lies with Ciro Gomes himself, because his resentment, hatred, lack of restraint, and verbal violence have ended up giving a strongly anti-democratic tone to his speeches.
Ciro has lost the ability to participate in debate with civility, a virtue that is a pillar of democracy. His visceral hatred of Lula has radicalized him in a way that is opposite to what Tasso Jereissati advocates for the PSDB in the speech he himself gave before Ciro.
He treats his political adversary as an absolute moral enemy who must be exterminated. As if to further emphasize the violence of his speech, he repeated twice the expression “for Brazil I die, but for Ceará I kill.”
Ciro Gomes made important contributions to the debate, such as the idea of a national project. But what he and his social media base seem not to understand is that there is no national project without a political, democratic construction, which needs to be done through calm, courteous, educated, and respectful dialogue.
By introducing enormous violence into political rhetoric, which is foreign to our tradition and harmful to a healthy debate, Ciro has done great harm to Brazilian democracy.
This violence is precisely the essence of the Bolsonarist movement, whose excesses and truculence in language made society value civility.
Ciro Gomes’s ideological contradictions have gone far beyond the traditional ambiguities of political struggle.
In his speech, Ciro’s main praise was directed at federal deputy André Fernandes (PL), a “raiz” (hardcore/grassroots) Bolsonarist who supports attacks on the STF (Supreme Federal Court) and the genocide in Gaza.
André Fernandes also authored a bill that provides for a commendation for the police officer who kills the most people, which is an absolutely fascist and highly dangerous initiative, as it could encourage indiscriminate killing.
Ciro has been silent on geopolitics precisely to not embarrass the ultra-reactionary positions of his new allies.
His digital militancy has ended up becoming very similar to him. Amid the contortions to explain Ciro’s contradictions, they end up in a “non-place” in politics. They win no adherents on the right, due to their trabalhista (labor) background, nor in the center and moderate left, due to their incivility, rudeness, and intolerance.
What is at stake in Brazil today, as in the rest of the world, is how to organize democratic resistance to this far-right movement of a fascist nature that is spreading through all countries.
For this reason, it is very frustrating to see Ciro Gomes silent in the face of acts like the bombing of boats in the Caribbean by the Trump government, under the pretext that they are traffickers. It is absolute barbarism, cold-blooded murder, to kill people without trial, without transparency, without explanation. These acts of state terrorism, which have already drawn protests from Amnesty International and the UN, find support, however, on the Brazilian far-right, to the point that Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL) asked the United States to attack boats in Guanabara Bay! If Ciro really wants to return to the debate, he needs to take a position on the great issues of our time.
His lack of restraint, which Tasso Jereissati indirectly acknowledged when praising Ciro’s wife for bringing him “emotional stability,” has long ceased to be a simple eccentricity. It has become disturbing, sinister, anti-democratic, like the misogynistic attacks against the former senator and now mayor of Crateús, Janaína Farias.
Another strange point in Ciro’s speech was his repeated accusation of having been “betrayed” in 2022, referring, though without naming him, to his own brother, Senator Cid Gomes.
Ciro seems to see politics through an absolutely personalist lens, as Cid Gomes stayed where he was, in the fight against regression in Ceará and Brazil. By insisting on this narrative of betrayal, Ciro signals that he does not want dialogue even with his own family. This intransigent attitude will not help him build a competitive broad front to dispute power in Ceará.
Ciro also did great harm to the PDT, turning the party into a target of the fury of this sectarian militancy he cultivated. The PDT bet on Ciro Gomes, organized two presidential campaigns, and gave almost all its electoral fund to him. Ciro Gomes repays this with a militancy that only wants to destroy the PDT, which is visible on the social media of the party’s main leaders, who are permanently suffocated by hate messages from Ciro’s own militants.
Ciro Gomes’s real chances on the national scene are limited, estimated at between 1% and 10% of the votes. This means his candidacy would be dehydrated from the start, with no real chance of reaching the second round.
His potential for the Ceará government also seems unlikely. The local conservative field will demand a candidate who reflects national strategies, preferably affiliated with one of the large parties (which is no longer the case for the PSDB), and who provides a platform in Ceará for a presidential candidate supported by Bolsonaro. Ciro would have to answer for many ambiguities and hold his tongue, which, when it comes to Ciro, is virtually impossible.
All these contradictions, from alignment with fascism to hostile language, tend to surface, creating embarrassment for the PSDB itself. The idea that Ciro would control the national PSDB is laughable given the presence of figures like Beto Richa and Aécio Neves. Furthermore, his entry has not even been ratified yet and is already beginning to face problems and internal conflicts, such as the formal request by former governor Eduardo Azeredo to block his affiliation, because of Ciro Gomes’s past attacks on Fernando Henrique Cardoso, José Serra, and the PSDB itself.
Notes for International Readers:
- Ciro Gomes: A veteran Brazilian politician, former governor of Ceará, former Minister of Finance, and multiple-time presidential candidate. He is known for his volatile personality and “national-developmentalist” economic ideas, historically associated with the center-left.
- PSDB (Partido da Social Democracia Brasileira): The Brazilian Social Democracy Party. Historically, it was the main center-right rival to Lula’s PT (Workers’ Party). The article argues it has since been “contaminated by the far-right.”
- Ceará: A state in the Northeast of Brazil, which is Ciro Gomes’s political stronghold. André Fernandes and Capitão Wagner are local right-wing politicians from the same state.
- Lula: Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the current President of Brazil and Ciro’s former political ally turned-arch-rival.
- Tasso Jereissati: A historical and moderate leader of the PSDB, also from Ceará.
- Bolsonarista: A supporter of former far-right president Jair Bolsonaro. “Bolsonarista raiz” means a “grassroots” or “hardcore” supporter.
- PL (Partido Liberal): The Liberal Party, which is Jair Bolsonaro’s political party.
- STF (Supremo Tribunal Federal): The Supreme Federal Court, Brazil’s highest court. It has been a frequent target of attacks from the Bolsonarist movement.
- Trabalhista (Labor): Refers to the political tradition of Getulismo in Brazil, a form of developmentalism and labor-focused nationalism. Ciro was long affiliated with the PDT (Democratic Labour Party).
- Cid Gomes: Ciro Gomes’s brother, also a prominent politician (Senator), who broke with Ciro in 2022 to support Lula’s coalition.
- PDT (Partido Democrático Trabalhista): The Democratic Labour Party, Ciro’s former party, which he left to join the PSDB.
- Aécio Neves, Beto Richa, FHC, José Serra, Eduardo Azeredo: All “old guard” or historically prominent (and controversial) figures from the national PSDB, mentioned here to show Ciro will not be able to control the party.
