Marcelo's 'Greek Praise' for Minister Reveals Lessons from Past Fire Crisis

Marcelo's Response to Minister's Controversial Statement

After Minister Maria Lúcia Amaral said "let's go" when about to be confronted with the problems and difficulties that populations face in fighting fires, Marcelo reacted. He stated that the minister is still "discovering the answers to give", among other things she is "discovering"—and Marcelo did not stop there.

"Not always is someone in suffocating situations able to respond appropriately," Marcelo also said about the Minister of Internal Administration. For political scientist José Filipe Pinto, "the President of the Republic defended by attacking, but above all, attacked by defending." That is, he wanted to "simultaneously protect the minister and highlight the weaknesses in her response."

On the other hand: "We can say that Marcelo learned from the mistake he made in the 2017 fires," considers the political scientist. José Filipe Pinto recalls that the head of state, during the Pedrógão Grande fires, placed himself "by the minister's side and anticipated and assumed the government's pains," even declaring that Constança Urbano de Sousa "did what had to be done." This solidarity, he explains, proved to be "premature and misaligned."

"Constança Urbano de Sousa ended up being a victim of the first presidential solidarity," something that, for José Filipe Pinto, led Marcelo to adopt a "different" attitude with Maria Lúcia Amaral. "Marcelo was more cautious this time. He was solidary, paternalistic, and stated that everything possible was done considering the minister's inexperience, meaning it was a true Greek praise."

The President's statements about the current minister come days after Maria Lúcia Amaral held a press conference lasting only five minutes in the midst of the fire crisis. When she was about to be confronted with questions about the problems and difficulties that populations face, she said "let's go". And she left.

This type of communication used by the government official did not leave Marcelo indifferent, who opted, in the words of political scientist Paula Espírito Santo, "to diminish the minister, indirectly." "It was a diminishment of the minister—who may not have political experience, but was a provedora and assumed other relevant roles throughout her life. That is, she is someone accustomed to dealing with crisis situations," emphasizes the political scientist.

"The minister was wrong in the press conference by saying 'let's go' and conveyed the image that those who decide need tranquility and peace. A message that is a disaster at a time when the population is in a state of worry." Paula Espírito Santo notes that Marcelo "was more assertive in 2017 with Constança Urbano de Sousa."

The researcher also identifies a substantial difference: "Marcelo is not as close to the Montenegro government as he was to Costa's. With Montenegro, there is no coordination, and that means he cannot, for example, go to the field, at the risk of weakening the government."

For José Filipe Pinto, Marcelo, who "is even known for being too interventionist, this time preferred the magistracy of influence to that of interference." For the political scientist, the President had an objective in his statements about the minister: "To say that there was inexperience."

The choice of words and the public posture of the President also reveal a strategic dimension. "In a way, Marcelo is protecting the government by not being at the center of the crisis as he usually likes. This means that the President ends up shielding himself in the importance of words, not failing to give his opinion," says Paula Espírito Santo, adding that the head of state has shown "a vision of an institutional father." "The government is disappointing the population, and the President is entering this public and political staging by saying that what is happening is not correct, but that patience is needed."