In 2002, seeking social change, I voted for the candidate Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Before the replacement of President Fernando Henrique Cardoso, I deserved a cartoon, by Paulo Caruso, in the magazine “IstoÉ”, of May 27, 2002. In it, I am at the door of a restaurant, with the presidential sash on my chest and arriving, with a suitcase card with labels “Spain” and “Italy” the holder of the presidency. Sign announcing the menu “TODAY SEAFOOD — LULA”. The title “Avenida BRASIL”, subtitle “in… INTERINIDADE INDIGESTA”. In it, a dedication was launched, in his own hand: “To my friend Minister Marco Aurelio, with hugs from my friend Lula, 10/29/02”.
I renewed my vote for re-election in 2006.
In July 2017, I closed a summer seminar at the University of Coimbra (POR) and spoke about the global trend of electing a right-wing populist candidate. I talked about the profile, mentioning Poland, Hungary and the United States. He said he feared for Brazil — electing the president of the Republic, in the elections of the following year, federal deputy Jair Bolsonaro, who had made the journey beating minorities. A page turned today, given the change in posture, for the good, in the exercise of the Presidency of the Republic, with the rhetorical outbursts persisting. It is to check the Annals of the University of Coimbra.
In the 2018 elections, I voted for candidate Fernando Haddad, from the Workers’ Party.
In these elections, I announced that I would vote for whoever was in third place in the polls. The vote was, in the first round, for Ciro Gomes, a candidate who knows the Brazilian entrails as well as few do. The investigation has now flowed. Bolsonaro, in search of re-election, in second place, and Lula in first place, without reaching the constitutionally required majority — half plus one of the valid votes.
With purity of soul and having courage as the synthesis of all virtues, north of 42 years in a collegiate judge, a record that will hardly be beaten — I began the office of judge in 1978, at the Regional Labor Court of the First Region, arriving, in 1981, to the Superior Labor Court, with a minimum age of 35 years, and to the Supreme Court in 1990, being reached, in 2021, by the expulsion of the 75 years old, I have been saying that, in the second round, next Sunday, I will vote for the current president.
The reason for the turnaround is asked. It’s simple, very simple: as a former judge, I cannot endorse the name of someone who was president of the Republic for eight years and whose political profile was tarnished by the famous “MENSALÃO” and “LAVA JATO” cases. Who was sentenced to a substantial prison sentence, partially executed. It will be said that the Supreme Court annulled the criminal proceedings. At the trial I was, with other colleagues, a losing vote.
In the benches of the National Law School, and I believe I was a good student, I learned that relative incompetence precludes, as opposed to absolute, example a because of the subject. The territorial is, of course, relative. She was buried with the end of the criminal proceedings related to crimes against the Public Administration – corruption and money laundering. But the Supreme, in the voice of the always enlightened majority, hit the hammer, politically resurrecting the candidate Lula, generating polarization that made the third way unfeasible. Did you absolve? The answer is disappointingly negative.
In Habeas Corpus, via a funneled instrument, it was established, by majority, the existence of a liquid and certain right to be judged by the Federal Court, not in the state of Paraná, but in the capital of the country, Brasília. He gave the said, for the unsaid, with the dynamics and organicity of Law in the background. In collegiate, democratic body par excellence, there is a sum of distinct technical and humanistic forces. In this, the members complement each other.
The majority wins and the result of the judgment is proclaimed in the Plenary Session, after the declaratory embargoes phase is exhausted, compliance is required. The fact does not remove the conscience of the voter, in the analysis of the candidates’ lives. Here are the reasons why, on Sunday, October 30, 2022, although at the age of 76, voting is not mandatory, I will fulfill the right-duty to elect the highest representative, suffling the name of the candidate Jair Messias Bolsonaro, who comes from obtain a significant victory in the elections for the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate of the Republic, with several former ministers elected, highlighting the unique figure of Vice President Hamilton Mourão, senator from the proud state of Rio Grande do Sul.
This fact signals the good work carried out. In the words of voters. The elected must graduate, take office and enter into office, attentive to the national ills that shame us so much. So be it, with cultural advancement, through the constant search for better days for the suffering Republic portrayed by Brazil.
Marco Aurélio Mello is a retired minister of the Federal Supreme Court and president of the Instituto UniCeub de Cidadania.