In the voice of God, as Elis Regina would say, "Caçador de Mim" seems to say something necessary for these times: we cannot run away from the fight. We must forget the fear and proceed with courage. This is how I see the Brazilian electoral scene and I confess: I am astonished.
How to understand that a person whose name appears involved in accusations, suspicions, and financial scandals can continue to be politically competitive, vying for the Presidency of the Republic with real chances of being elected? I do not make a legal judgment. Investigation is not a conviction, suspicion is not a sentence. The rule of law requires presumption of innocence and due process. My question is directed to conscience: where is the ethics in political choice? And the ethics of the voter?
Polarization transforms the opponent into an enemy and can lead someone to vote only to defeat the other. This adds propaganda, disinformation, fear, resentment, and algorithmic repetition, narrowing discernment and confusing fact and fabrication, reflection and impulse.
Hannah Arendt remains relevant in reflecting on the banality of evil. How can what provoked moral outrage yesterday be relativized when it affects our own field? Will we be faced with two weights and two measures: rigor for the opponent, indulgence for ourselves?
Norberto Bobbio helps us to see the risk: when democratic principles are relativized according to political convenience, democracy itself is weakened. We must reaffirm institutions, rights, limits to power, and the rule of law.
Because we don't just choose candidates, but social projects: democracy or totalitarian temptation; pluralism or the fabrication of enemies; sustainable economic and social development or an economy that abandons the vulnerable, destroys nature, and subjects life to the market; a welfare state or a minimal state for the poor and workers and a maximal state for the powerful and large economic interests.
Voting is not morally neutral. No election offers purely moral choices, but choosing implies responsibility. If I condemn the behavior of the opponent and justify it in my own camp, I am not following an ethical principle: I am following convenience.
I remember Dom Pedro Casaldáliga and his simple and radical criterion: stand on the side of the poor. That is where I want us to meet: not on the front lines of hatred or in the idolatry of parties or candidates, but in a commitment to the poor, the persecuted, and the marginalized, and to integral ecology.
There is still a deeply Christian contradiction. It is not enough to proclaim God, defend "Christian values," or display religious morality if political practice forgets the sociotransforming dimension of the Gospel. The Kingdom announced by Jesus takes on flesh in the beatitudes, in the hunger and thirst for justice, in the promotion of peace, in caring for the poor, and in defending those whose rights are denied. When these values yield to the interests of power, faith risks becoming hypocrisy and Pharisaism.
Jesus spoke of "empty tombs": appearance on the outside, contradiction on the inside. Corruption is not corruption simply because it changes sides. Justice cannot only be against others.
But I don't want to end up in disillusionment. In times of clouded consciousness, we need to rekindle ethical responsibility and hope. I return to Milton Nascimento and "The Hunter of Me": it is necessary to open one's heart to strength and seek a project of happiness, justice, peace, and integral ecology — a happiness not only individual, but above all collective: us.
It is necessary to cross the dark forest and walk towards the light. And, as Cardinal Dom Paulo Evaristo Arns said in such difficult times: "hope by hope". May this hope renew in us courage and tenderness.