It is not new that the political arena is perceived pejoratively, marked by hidden interests and practices. Scandals involving monthly payments and gasoline, in particular, have bolstered the politician’s appalling image. In this process, the message spread through Lava Jato that politics would be hopelessly rotten also fueled negative perceptions of political activism.

All of this has made staying out of politics – or the perception of the population as such – a powerful electoral asset. For example, in the 2016 municipal elections, when he was elected in the first round, João Doria actively used the attribute of an outsider in politics. Jair Bolsonaro did the same in the 2018 presidential elections.Ignoring his long parliamentary trajectory (he was a federal deputy since 1991), the then PSL candidate introduced himself as a military man who had come to save politics.

Little remains of the campaign promises. Throughout the government, Jair Bolsonaro has adopted a face more in line with his political trajectory: the face of a populist who only thinks about elections. Despite this new position, however, the rhetoric of distancing from politics, which is always pejorative, still exists in and around the Bolsonaro government. This approach is especially present in the speeches of the Minister of Economy, Paulo Gedes.

Recently, speaking about the need to cut spending and resist budgetary adjustments, Central Bank President Roberto Campos Neto reaffirmed this policy framework. “I understand the complexity (of cutting costs) and understand that the political world creates its own limitations in this regard,” Campos Neto said at the 9th Legal Forum in Lisbon.

Three points stand out in this way of addressing the “political world” that transcends the pocket environment. First, the idea of ​​alienation. The policy will be shaped by other, third parties. Those who refer to the “political world” usually put themselves outside of it, outside of this supposedly dirty world.

The second characteristic is unethical character. The political world would be inherently bad: short-term, irresponsible, and indifferent to the public interest. Nothing in this world will benefit society. Consequently, all good, honest and hardworking citizens must, to one degree or another, oppose the political world.

Last but not least is the idea of ​​standardization. There is a recognition that the political world will be like this, without medicine and without a future. This is especially noticeable in the government’s attempts to attribute its failures to the “political world.” The discourse is always the same: an attempt was made to implement this or that measure, but this failed due to the restrictions imposed by politicians. The tone is clearly submissive, but the content is strictly irresponsible. This is the fault of others – politicians who would always be greedy.

Here we see the fallacy of portraying the political sphere as a separate, inexorably corrupt world. The alleged evil of the “political world” is a simple evasion tactic — and this applies to both government and citizens (who, after all, elect politicians). A competent and responsible executive branch is positively transforming this supposedly perverse and corrupt political world. A weak government without a proposal, pursuing solely electoral goals, corrupts the political environment. It encourages the worst practices and makes the worst dreams of bad politicians viable.

There is no civil and political peace. This division is a misapplication of the military mentality (in which there is actually a military realm other than a civilian one). Society is a part of politics, it is a sphere of politics. A government that speaks badly about politicians and the political world speaks badly about itself. In doing so, he wants irresponsibility, but achieves the exact opposite: he shows ignorance of his personality and admits his incompetence.