Lula, Not Carney, Deserves the Title 'Leader of the Free World'
Source: Gerard Di Trolio. "Mark Carney Isn’t the “Leader of the Free World.” Lula Is.." October 7, 2026. jacobin.com
The Gist
The author argues that despite Western media hype calling Canada's PM Mark Carney the new 'leader of the free world,' Brazil's President Lula actually deserves that title. Lula fights for democracy by connecting it to economic fairness and has taken real stances against authoritarianism and injustice globally, while Carney is just an elite banker offering empty rhetoric and timid, inconsistent policies.
Conclusion
Brazilian President Lula da Silva, not Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, deserves to be considered the 'leader of the free world' because Lula has done more to protect democracy and promote a fair global system.
Premises
- Lula came from an impoverished working-class background and fought to restore democracy after Brazil's military dictatorship, while Carney rose through elite institutions (Harvard, Oxford, Goldman Sachs, central banking) and remains embedded among global economic elites.
- Lula's government responded forcefully to the January 8, 2023 coup attempt, securing convictions and jailing Bolsonaro, and created the Observatório da Democracia to monitor threats to democracy.
- Lula articulates and acts on an expansive vision of democracy that links political rights to economic equality, reduced inequality, and social inclusion, as shown through initiatives like the Global Alliance against Hunger and Poverty and the 'In Defence of Democracy' partnership with Spain.
- Lula has shown moral consistency by refusing to recognize Venezuela's stolen 2024 election, criticizing Nicaragua's authoritarian laws, condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, while still maintaining diplomatic channels rather than severing relations entirely.
- On Israel/Gaza, Lula called Israel's actions genocide within weeks of October 7, while Carney's government has only taken minimal, reluctant measures and even punished a politician for supporting stronger restrictions on arms exports.
- Lula has rallied Latin American solidarity against the U.S. 'Donroe Doctrine' and condemned the Cuba blockade as illegal, while Carney has abandoned the Americas rhetorically and Canada abstained on a UN procedural vote regarding the Cuba blockade.
- Carney's political vision, exemplified by his Davos speech, amounts to empty technocratic neoliberalism—the same failed model that fueled the disillusionment Trump exploited—whereas Lula's vision, despite flaws, is tied to tangible economic and social commitments.
Assumptions
- A true 'leader of the free world' should be judged by concrete actions defending democracy and challenging global injustice, not by popularity or media narrative.
- Economic equality and social inclusion are integral components of genuine democracy, not separate from it.
- Technocratic neoliberalism is inherently insufficient or counterproductive for sustaining democratic legitimacy.
- Moral consistency in foreign policy (e.g., toward Venezuela, Nicaragua, Cuba, Gaza) is a meaningful indicator of genuine democratic commitment.
- Diplomatic engagement with adversarial regimes (e.g., Russia, Venezuela) is compatible with, rather than a betrayal of, democratic values.
- The media's framing of Carney as 'leader of the free world' is primarily driven by comfort-seeking among centrists rather than by substantive merit.