He is the one who publicizes Bolsonaro the most
Em um domingo de maio, o ex-presidente Michel Temer voltou à cena pública não para defender a si mesmo, mas para questionar o que falta ao seu sucessor. Sua crítica a Lula não era sobre política econômica ou escolhas administrativas, mas sobre algo mais sutil e mais profundo: a diferença entre ter uma intenção e ter a vontade de realizá-la. No grande arco da política brasileira, Temer identificou um padrão antigo — governantes que olham para trás em vez de governar para frente, e uma nação que continua fraturada enquanto espera por uma liderança que a una.
- Temer acusa Lula de prometer pacificação nacional sem ter a vontade política necessária para concretizá-la, deixando o país tão radicalizado quanto o encontrou.
- A obsessão de Lula em mencionar Bolsonaro publicamente, na visão de Temer, paradoxalmente mantém o ex-presidente vivo no debate nacional e amplifica sua influência.
- Temer contrasta seu próprio estilo de governar — sem invocar predecessores — com o que vê como uma incapacidade de Lula de simplesmente seguir em frente.
- O ciclo vicioso da política brasileira, onde cada novo governo trata o anterior como inimigo a ser destruído, é apontado como obstáculo estrutural à unidade nacional.
- Temer reconhece a capacidade de Bolsonaro de mobilizar multidões, mas adverte que presença nas ruas não se converte automaticamente em votos nas urnas.
Em maio de 2024, Michel Temer concedeu uma entrevista em que criticou com precisão cirúrgica o governo Lula — não por suas políticas, mas por uma falha de caráter político mais fundamental. Temer, que governou o Brasil entre 2016 e 2018, disse que Lula chegou ao poder com a promessa de pacificar um país profundamente dividido, mas que a intenção não se traduziu em ação. O Brasil já estava radicalizado quando Lula assumiu, reconheceu Temer, mas isso tornava a tarefa urgente, não impossível — desde que houvesse vontade real de enfrentá-la.
A crítica mais contundente de Temer, porém, não era sobre omissão, mas sobre palavras. Lula, disse ele, não consegue fazer um discurso sem mencionar Bolsonaro. Para Temer, isso é ao mesmo tempo um erro estratégico e um sintoma: ao nomear o adversário constantemente, Lula o mantém no centro da conversa nacional, dando-lhe uma visibilidade que o próprio Bolsonaro não conseguiria sustentar sozinho. Temer disse que, quando governou, simplesmente não falava sobre seus antecessores — governava.
Temer também tocou em uma ferida mais antiga da política brasileira: a tendência de cada governo tratar o anterior como herança maldita a ser varrida, em vez de buscar continuidade onde ela faz sentido. Essa postura adversarial, argumentou, é incompatível com qualquer projeto de unidade nacional. Por fim, ao ser questionado sobre a capacidade de Bolsonaro de lotar ruas, Temer foi pragmático: multidões impressionam, mas eleições se ganham nas urnas — e as duas coisas não são a mesma.
Michel Temer sat down with a newspaper on a Sunday in May and delivered a sharp critique of the man who succeeded him in the presidency. The former Brazilian leader, who governed from 2016 to 2018, expressed disappointment with Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's first year back in office, particularly around a promise that had animated Lula's campaign: the idea of national pacification, a healing of the country's deep political wounds.
Temer's complaint was specific. He said Lula had the intention but lacked the will to follow through. The country, Temer argued, was already fractured when Lula took office—radicalized on all sides, hostile in every direction. What was needed was action, sustained effort, a genuine commitment to bridge the gap. Instead, Temer saw hesitation. "I think there was perhaps a lack of political will on one side, and on the other side, since Brazil was already radicalized, there was aggression from all sides," he said.
But Temer's sharpest complaint was about something else entirely: Lula's mouth. The president, Temer said, could not stop talking about Jair Bolsonaro. Every time Lula opened his mouth in public, Bolsonaro's name came out. Temer found this baffling and counterproductive. When he had been president and faced criticism, he said, he did not spend his time invoking his predecessor. He simply governed. He moved forward. "The president Lula is always talking about president Bolsonaro. He is the one who publicizes president Bolsonaro the most," Temer said. The implication was clear: by constantly naming Bolsonaro, Lula was keeping him alive in the national conversation, amplifying him, making him impossible to ignore.
Temer also reflected on a broader pattern in Brazilian politics that he saw as corrosive. When a new government arrives, it tends to treat the previous one as an enemy to be dismantled rather than a predecessor whose work might contain something worth preserving. The phrase "cursed inheritance" had become so common in Brazilian political speech that it had calcified into cliché. This adversarial approach, Temer suggested, was incompatible with the kind of unity the country needed. The opposition, he said, should see itself as having a role in governance, offering constructive criticism rather than pure obstruction. But that was not how Brazilian politics worked.
When asked about Bolsonaro's capacity to draw crowds—his supporters had shown up in significant numbers at recent political events, even as labor unions struggled to fill the streets on May Day—Temer acknowledged the reality without being impressed by it. Yes, Bolsonaro could put people on the street. That demonstrated something real about his appeal, his reach, his hold on a portion of the electorate. But Temer was clear on one point: putting people on the street does not win elections. The measure of political power in a democracy is not the size of the crowd you can summon but the votes you can secure when people enter the ballot box. Bolsonaro's street presence was notable but not decisive.
Notable Quotes
I think there was perhaps a lack of political will on one side, and on the other side, since Brazil was already radicalized, there was aggression from all sides.— Michel Temer, on why national pacification failed
If Bolsonaro puts that many people on the street, you cannot deny him prestige, but putting people on the street does not win elections.— Michel Temer, on Bolsonaro's street mobilization capacity
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does Temer think Lula's constant references to Bolsonaro actually hurt the pacification project?
Because every time Lula names Bolsonaro, he's keeping him in the conversation. He's making him unavoidable. Temer sees it as the opposite of moving forward—it's like constantly looking backward while claiming to want unity.
But couldn't Lula argue that Bolsonaro's actions and legacy are relevant to what he's trying to do?
Maybe. But Temer's point is about method, not substance. He's saying: if you want to heal a fractured country, you don't do it by relitigating the previous guy every day. You do it by building something new and letting the old fade.
Is Temer suggesting Lula should have ignored Bolsonaro entirely?
Not ignored—just not made him the centerpiece of every speech. There's a difference between addressing a problem and being obsessed with it.
What about the radicalization Temer mentions? Isn't that something Lula inherited?
Yes, absolutely. Temer's not denying that. But he's saying Lula had a choice about how to respond to it. He could have chosen a different approach. Instead, Temer sees him as amplifying the very divisions he promised to heal.
And the opposition—Temer seems frustrated with them too?
He is. He's saying Brazilian politics has become a zero-sum game where each side wants to destroy what came before. That makes it almost impossible for any president to govern effectively, because the opposition sees cooperation as weakness.
So who bears responsibility for the failed pacification, in Temer's view?
Lula, primarily. Temer's saying the president had the power to set a different tone and didn't. The radicalization was real, but the response to it was a choice.