Why Lula Is Rebranding Himself Beyond the Left

Lula’s latest statements revive the debate over whether ideological moderation reflects genuine political evolution or a strategic effort to preserve power.

The Masks of Power
The Disease of Hubris the Left Cultivates: Hatred of Truth
By Dr. Nelson Jorge Mosco Castellano

Lula and the Art of Metamorphosis
There is, in politics as in vaudeville theatre, an old trick: the illusionist displays one empty hand so that the audience, distracted by the apparent transparency of his palm, fails to notice what is happening inside his sleeve.
Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the old trade unionist from São Bernardo do Campo, has now decided, at the age of eighty, that the “left” is a suit that no longer fits him—or perhaps a garment no longer appropriate for the etiquette of major international banquets.
“I was never left-wing,” he declares with his familiar, almost disarming smile before the Managing Director of the IMF, during what appeared to be a discreet conversation but was clearly allowed to spread.
One is left staring in disbelief, wondering whether the man suffers from selective amnesia or has simply concluded that truth has become a luxury he can no longer afford.
Because what are we to do with the São Paulo Forum?
What are we to make of that founding embrace under the Caribbean sun, where Fidel Castro—the great architect of the iron prison—offered his blessing?
That was no European social-democratic reading club.
It was a strategic alliance, a gentlemen’s pact built around ideological uniformity, which promised paradise and ended, as it so often does, by distributing ration cards.
Issuing directives to attack any opponent, destroy every expression of intellectual freedom and encourage militant falsehood, following the maxim attributed to another socialist, Joseph Goebbels: “Repeat a lie often enough and it becomes accepted.”
Lula now claims not to be left-wing.
Yet his biography traces a map of shared roads with the enthusiasts of political disaster.
The photographs remain.
So do the archives.
So does the silent complicity with Hugo Chávez, the military officer who confused an entire country with his own barracks, together with the enduring indulgence shown toward Nicolás Maduro, whose model of government has succeeded in transforming abundance into queues for bread and eggs.
And what about José Luis Rodríguez Zapatero?
The familiar Spanish mediator, travelling from one international forum to another, softening the edges of authoritarianism beneath the varnish of “dialogue.”
Each of them has, at one time or another, travelled alongside a Lula who now wishes to persuade us that he has always belonged to the political centre—or perhaps even to the right—on the premise that extremes eventually meet, presenting himself as a tightrope walker of pragmatism.
This is, in reality, an act of political survival.
Lula has discovered that ideology becomes an obstacle for the ruler who wishes to remain in office.
For the traditional South American politician, the political centre is that vague mist where the votes sustaining public budgets can be gathered while, in the shadows, the old revolutionary liturgy continues to receive applause.
It is the great imposture: appearing as a moderate statesman before financial markets while remaining the mentor of the radical left before ideological comrades.
This is not evolution.
It is an exercise in professional cynicism.
The post-ideological discourse is a calculated strategy designed to disarm moderate opposition and reassure the business community while preserving the deep alliances of twenty-first-century socialism behind an appearance of institutional moderation before global public opinion.
Some observers suggest this may not necessarily be deception but rather extreme political realism.
According to this view, Lula understands that governing a country as large and diverse as Brazil makes the revolutionary rhetoric of the last century electorally unviable.
He therefore abandons the label of the left not because his convictions have changed, but because the label itself has become an electoral burden preventing him from assembling the majorities required to retain power.
What provokes criticism from those who perceive an ethical inconsistency is that, while domestically Lula presents himself as a moderate administrator seeking consensus with markets and productive sectors, internationally he continues defending many of his historical allies, displaying reluctance to condemn authoritarian developments in Venezuela and Nicaragua.
This duality explains why he is applauded in economic forums as a guarantor of stability while simultaneously being portrayed by his critics as the principal political sponsor of a geopolitical bloc accused of weakening democratic institutions throughout the region.
The Lula who now distances himself from his own past is not seeking moderation.
He is seeking camouflage, so that history—and above all the electorate—will not eventually demand accountability for a region where, thanks to many of those same allies, millions now live between exile, economic collapse and the nostalgia of freedom.
When the curtain finally falls, it will matter little how many times the illusionist insists he is someone else.
Facts are stubborn.
And the São Paulo Forum—that monument to ideological obstinacy—continues to cast the shadow that follows Lula wherever he attempts to walk toward the political centre.

Political Pragmatism
Ideological Narrative
Power and Legitimacy

Continue reading in Global Order and Geopolitics.