As I was reading the results of Brazil's presidential election, I was reminded of something Egypt experienced during the reign of King Farouk, when the Wafd Party stood at the pinnacle of political life without a serious rival.
At that time, a curious phrase became popular among Egyptians: "If the Wafd nominated a stone, we would vote for it." The phrase carried a clear meaning. Any candidate running under the Wafd banner was certain to win, regardless of his personal abilities or qualifications. It was enough that he had secured the party's nomination and endorsement. Beyond that, nothing else mattered, to borrow the title of Ihsan Abdel Quddous's novel, Nothing Matters.
In time, Egyptian voters proved that this was not merely a slogan. The evidence came when Ismail Sidqi Pasha, the prominent Egyptian statesman, entered a parliamentary race in the Gharbia governorate north of Cairo. To his surprise, an obscure Wafd-affiliated effendi, with neither a political reputation nor a notable record, decided to challenge him.
Given Sidqi Pasha's stature in Egyptian politics, he likely dismissed the candidacy as insignificant. He saw no reason to worry about the little-known Wafd candidate entering the race against him.
But when the results were announced, it was the Wafd candidate who emerged victorious. Sidqi Pasha found himself facing an unimaginable upset, one he must have struggled to comprehend. The amusing part is that the victorious candidate was not remembered by his actual name in the political history of that era. Instead, he became famous by a single title: "The Man Who Defeated Sidqi."
Egyptians bestowed this nickname upon him, and it was well deserved. Anyone familiar with Sidqi Pasha's political weight believed that his participation in an election all but guaranteed victory. Yet the contest turned out to be different when the opponent carried the Wafd banner.
The significance did not lie simply in the Wafd candidate's victory, but in the fact that he defeated Sidqi Pasha himself, despite the latter's prestige, renowned intelligence, and political skill.
By analogy, while acknowledging the differences between the two situations, anyone following the news of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva's victory over his rival Flavio Bolsonaro would conclude that if Lula deserves a title after this election, it can only be "The Man Who Defeated Bolsonaro." One might even call him "The Defeater of the Right."
Nearly every factor seemed to favor Bolsonaro and work against Lula. The rightward political tide sweeping much of Latin America appeared to support Bolsonaro rather than Lula. Yet, despite the strength of that conservative wave, it ultimately failed to carry Bolsonaro to the presidential palace.
As he campaigned against Lula, Bolsonaro also benefited from the political legacy of his father, who had ruled the country for four years. The son may have believed that his father's current imprisonment would generate sympathy and translate into votes. Throughout the campaign, he appeared to many observers as little more than an extension of his father.
Meanwhile, US President Donald Trump openly backed the younger Bolsonaro from the White House, just as he had once supported Bolsonaro's father. Trump appeared convinced that his bet on the son was a sound one, only to be surprised by Lula's victory. Brazil, after all, is not just any country where a leftist victory might have little consequence for relations with the United States.
Nor was that the only advantage Bolsonaro enjoyed. The global political right, especially in Europe, also appeared to be on his side. Hardly a day passed without right-wing movements gaining ground somewhere on the continent. The trend had become so widespread that it resembled a political contagion spreading from one European country to another.
So strong was Bolsonaro's faith in these favorable conditions that he quickly rejected the election results, announcing that he neither accepted nor recognized them. Yet he soon realized that the advance of the right around him, both in his region and globally, did not necessarily guarantee his own success.
Brazilians had experienced both right-wing and left-wing governments within a relatively short span of time. When the moment came to choose, they sided with the man who had defeated the right for the fourth time in his political career.
Lula's achievement went beyond defeating Bolsonaro. Symbolically, he also defeated the wider rightward surge that appears to be gathering momentum. That is the significance many attached to his victory.
And perhaps his success offers people around the world a measure of hope. For wherever the contemporary and less appealing version of the political right gains power, it often finds itself in conflict with human beings simply because they are human.
