After a long judicial struggle, former Brazilian President Ignacio Lula da Silva has been sentenced to 12 years in prison accused of corruption.

This same week the Supreme Court of that country decided in a closed vote, of 6 against 5 magistrates, to reject the petition of Habeas Corpus asking for Lula not to be imprisoned before exhausting his rights of appeals.

If that accusation is finally accepted, the Brazilian politician, candidate to the next presidential elections and who enjoys broad majority in all polls, could not run as candidate.

The decision of the highest judicial body speaks clearly of the political background of the conviction and accusations that weigh on the former president. The current political and social polarization of Brazil has its origin in the impeachment, under an administrative argument, of the elected President Dilma Roussef. The impeachment was approved by a parliament in which two thirds of its members were themselves accused of serious corruption and bribery crimes. One example for all: the President of the chamber that led the session of impeachment against Roussef is currently in jail and convicted.

The soft and constitutional coup, carried out in the first place by the legislative power, and apparently ratified at the moment by a minimum majority of the highest body of the judiciary, is an example of the so called separation of powers proclaimed by Western democracies. It’s just a supposition, and the hidden economic, political and external powers command more than the decisions taken by the voting citizens.

In the meantime, the former vice-president, and current president (not elected but put there through a legal substitution), Michel Temer, is very active in suppressing laws and regulations of a social and progressive nature, leading to more public debt, and to privatize everything that can be privatized.

Temer is a conservative politician, closely linked to powerful national and international economic sectors and media, (accused in turn of very serious and clear cases of corruption, but protected by his position). His popular approval according to opinion polls by the same rightwing companies hardly reaches 6%, at this moment, while Lula has a popular support of 40% of the potential voters.

The lessons to be learned from 10 years of governments of the left, seem quite clear and go beyond the evident advances in what refers to social policies (education, health or redistribution of wealth). Making alliances with sectors on the right, has a price, just as not daring to apply political and structural transformations on issues such as agrarian reform, urban property, or not to promote changes in production, property or free information.

All of the above, as it happened, can only lead progressive governments to disaster, depriving them of social support, no matter how popular their leaders may be.

At international and regional level, the consequences of the left's errors in the subcontinent are equally serious: the imbalance in the region in favor of US imperialist policies and its allied oligarchies, which only seek to implement harsh neo-liberal policies with high social costs.

In the case of Brazil, the disappearance of the BRICs (of which Brazil was a founder) should also be added, as well as the irreparable setbacks in regional integration processes such as UNASUR or CELAC.

Beyond Lula's incarceration (certainly a decision to counter and protest against), the political and social forces and the increasingly isolated left-wing Latin American governments should seriously stop and reflect on the fundamental issues. Because these are the issues they have committed to in search of profound and lasting changes of their societies and in favor of a new world.

The battle is still on. If Lula is not ultimately convicted and can run as a candidate would be a good way to measure health and awareness of what is at stake for the left and social movements, not just Brazil, but in Latin America.