Crisis between Brazil and Nicaragua reveals Lula's dilemmas regarding authoritarianism and democracy.

The diplomatic crisis between Brazil and Nicaragua has sparked a deep debate about President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's stance towards leftist regimes considered dictatorial. Despite international pressure and criticism from regional leaders such as Luis Lacalle Pou and Gabriel Boric, Lula appears reluctant to distance himself from his old alliances with these governments. This situation has highlighted the contradictions of his administration and the moral dilemma he faces. The situation intensified following Pope Francis's visit to Brazil, during which he urged Lula to intercede on behalf of Bishop Rolando Álvarez, who is imprisoned in Nicaragua for refusing to leave the country. This papal intervention was undoubtedly a decisive factor that led Lula to cool relations with the Sandinista regime. However, the Brazilian president's response was lukewarm, marking a pattern of hesitation in his foreign policy. Since taking office, Lula has faced criticism for his ties to authoritarian leaders in the region. In May 2023, both Lacalle Pou and Boric expressed their concerns in Brasília about how Lula has tried to relativize the concept of democracy. Such attitudes, which have included tributes to Nicolás Maduro, have raised eyebrows not only in his own country but throughout Latin America. The absence of the Brazilian ambassador in Nicaragua is a clear indication that, although steps are being taken towards a more democratic stance, ideological loyalties still persist. Lula's decision to cool relations with Ortega's regime was a necessary move, but not without its complications. Pressure from the Vatican has been a key factor in this shift, suggesting that Lula may be more motivated by religious intervention than by democratic convictions. The repression in Nicaragua has been brutal. Since 2021, Ortega's regime has intensified its attack against the opposition, arresting leaders and stifling any dissent. The detention of Álvarez, who was sentenced to 26 years in prison, reveals the severity of the Nicaraguan government, which has carried out a series of assaults against the Catholic Church. In 2023, police invaded a convent and expelled Brazilian nuns, an act that underscores the oppression the country is experiencing. Lula, who has been a defender of human rights throughout his career, faces a dilemma: should he maintain his historical ties with these regimes at the expense of the democratic values he claims to uphold? The answer seems to be a complicated balancing act in which the leader clings to a leftist populism that has proven to be more authoritarian than democratic. The Venezuelan Episcopal Conference has also raised its voice, denouncing the actions of Maduro's regime and pointing out the lack of recognition of the people's will. However, unlike the pressure exerted by the Vatican in the Nicaraguan case, the voice of the Venezuelan church does not seem to have resonated in the corridors of Brazilian power. Lula's hope for a dialogue between the Venezuelan regime and opposition leader María Corina Machado has been dismissed by key figures in the government. Diosdado Cabello has made it clear that the opposition has no negotiating power, and Maduro has promised repressive actions against those who challenge his regime. Lula's dilemma becomes more evident as he is forced to choose between maintaining his support for populist leaders who have weakened democratic institutions in their respective countries and defending a democratic ideal that seems to be in danger. In this context, his legacy and the credibility of his government are at stake. The future of diplomatic relations in Latin America largely depends on how Lula positions himself in this crisis. His ability to distance himself from authoritarian regimes could be key not only for Brazil but for the entire region, at a time when democracies seem to be under attack on several fronts. History will watch whether the Brazilian president ultimately chooses the path of democracy over authoritarian populism.