Dallagnol wants Brazil to solve a problem of his

The news is right to broadcast live the statement of former prosecutor and former federal deputy for Paraná, Deltan Dallagnol, this Wednesday (the 17th), but right with the caveat that there may be something sadistic on national networks. The decision to remove him from office came yesterday, and he defended himself today. As is generally known, he was removed by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), which divides the opinions of serious people. Some consider it a legal error, and others defend the interpretation and the vote of Justice Benedito Gonçalves. In this text, that discussion is set aside.

I had just arrived from an appointment at the university when I turned on the television and came face to face with Dallagnol alongside an intriguing group, to say the least, explaining to Brazilians that evil had won in Brazil because he lost in court. Flagrant narcissism, megalomania, Protestant fundamentalism, a bit of each? Or, on the contrary, the absence of anything?

Quite frankly, I was waiting for a striking speech, but I did not imagine how striking it would really be. It is a historic embarrassment to use in classes on psychoanalysis and political communication. Can it work to the point of restoring to him a ridiculously overpriced prestige? It can. Especially from the people of my state I can expect them to make him mayor of the capital (even without any experience governing, but sufficiently white and rancorous).

I am not in the habit of celebrating blunders of public life. I feel ashamed when our authorities are investigated or arrested, or anything of that category. So there is nothing to celebrate in this gentleman’s removal, just as there is, at least on my part, no lament. Perhaps they forgot to tell him how things work in politics. Or have all politicians suddenly forgotten the way Dallagnol labeled and despised them? What was this guy expecting? Was it with this naïveté that he headed Operation Car Wash?

From the point of view of some friends who not only support Dallagnol but also have little or no regard for the Workers’ Party or Lula, whom they partly fight vehemently, moral practice also happens when it is necessary to incarcerate (or kill) a dangerous individual. Judging by the hero’s speech today, it is absolutely moral to remove him from public life as long as he is incapable of understanding that politics is a communal experience, and that what matters is what the other thinks. That this is how it is built.

Appointing oneself a hero

This man’s speech does not offend me, but it worries me in civilizational terms. Once again a “brother,” an equal, a “little shit like us,” rants: “I will save you.” Sir, I and the people I know have not asked you for anything. You compared yourself to Joseph of Egypt (a round of applause for the Record soap opera!), to Jesus. Do you know what you lack? Reading the Gospels a bit more. There is something you interpreted into Operation Car Wash in the biblical text, if you catch my drift.

In recent weeks, I have been leaning toward psychological perspectives on the choice of leaders. In general terms, those elected to govern run enormous risks — that of being assassinated, even (consider the stabbing of Bolsonaro). Becoming a passion of the masses requires offering the masses protection and assistance. When those elements become scarce or cease, and that leadership is no longer useful (after gathering more than 300 thousand votes for a party, for example), then it is lynched by those who crowned it. At that point, there is a connection with Jesus himself, because he was crucified by those who received him with palm branches.

The same press that reported Dallagnol as the country’s salvation exposes him in a humiliating role of a crying child. “But this only happens to me,” “why don’t they do this to Gilmar?”, “even Beto Richa has a mandate.” Then he crosses over to an angry criticality through which he will be able to free all of Brazil from an evil he fears.

If we take it as true that individuals are responsible for their paths, we can then ask ourselves the child’s question: “why does Beto Richa have a mandate and Dallagnol is removed?”