Lula's victory in the second round of Brazil's presidential elections was sensational. Few imagined he could overcome the handicap he started off with, after the extreme right candidate Bolsonaro left him well behind in the first lap of their race.

Lula and Bolsonaro stood for two of the three contrasting positions in the democratic politics of today's world: that of the progressive left versus the populist right. (The third force, which is stagnating in Europe, gravitates around the left-right centre.)

In its entirety, Lula's career has been a demonstration of how the progressive left can generate the dynamic tension required to win elections while promoting programmes that are run by the working class and deliver social solidarity. On this occasion, the Lula project carried as well a strong dose of national defiance against the superpowers which consider that their sheer size gives them the right to dominate everybody else.

***

THE CHALLENGE REMAINS

With some reservations, the 2027 budget can be seen as an exercise in risk taking, calculation, prudence and as well, social support. Risk does define the decision taken to continue with subsidies that apply erga omnes. Calculation because it seems like attention has been given to how the government should control waste and how with less resources, more could be done. Prudence because the temptation was resisted to offload many more benefits to one and all in order to sustain political momentum. Support because new social benefits were designed,  launched and presented in a reasonable manner.

All this emerges when one considers the positive aspects of the whole operation,  and there are many - albeit with reservations.

Yet, the budget did not respond (as some expected it would) to the strategic challenges - economic and social - which the country faces, by staking out the options about them that will be followed. These options have to be considered from a national perspective and laid out in a political declaration that reflects the values of the Maltese people, the Labour Party and the government itself. But that's not what a budget is for... or is it?

***

THOSE AT THE BACK

Nothing distinguishes a progressive from a reactionary government more than the way by which they treat those members of society who lose out, some through their own fault, many others because they find themselves in a weak economic or social situaton, or because of health problems. In the reactionary vision, the community is not there to intervene in situations which occur "naturally" and to try and solve problems encountered by individuals. They should be allowed to find resolution in a "natural" way as individuals discover the levels of living that fit their qualities. If in such situations, human sympathy or solidarity is to be allowed, then best that it be given through private philantropic initiatives or by the Churches.

To the contrary, the progressive vision insistently favours direct interventions by the community in the name of social justice, to help losers gain back their life. Such initiatives should not beconsidered as an exercise in state philantropy. With the improved conditions they bring about, people who have lost out could become more productive, economically, socially and culturally. That outcome then contributes to improvements in the society as a whole.