“In Brazil, impunity for those who attack democracy has always been the rule. This trial breaks that cycle” — Oscar Vilhena Vieira (2025).”
Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF) has recently upheld the decision to convict former Brazilian president Jair Bolsonaro, who was president from 2019 to 2022, of plotting a military coup with the intent to overthrow the government after he lost the 2022 presidential election to current president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Currently, the STF is sentencing Bolsonaro to twenty-seven years and three months in prison. In addition to Bolsonaro’s conviction, the STF is in the process of convicting seven co-conspirators, which include individuals who hold high-ranking positions within the military and others who still hold power in government for using “…state machinery to prevent the democratic transition.” Although the conspiracy failed, as Lula became president on January 1st of 2023, this attempt is now being condemned by the most powerful court in Brazil, marking an important step towards democratic resilience, especially prior to presidential elections that will take place next year, in 2026.
Prior to the STF’s ruling to uphold Bolsonaro’s conviction, Bolsonaro had already been prohibited from running in a presidential election until 2030. Following a decision made by the Superior Electoral Court (TSE), Bolsonaro was found guilty of spreading false claims regarding Brazil’s voting systems, claiming that they were “…vulnerable to hacking and fraud” prior to the 2022 election. The court stated that such claims had a negative impact on electoral procedures due to their harmful nature and intent to undermine the credibility of the voting system.
The decision made by four out of five justices to uphold Bolsonaro’s conviction for conspiring to overthrow the government is a unique case in which the Brazilian judiciary plays a crucial role in preventing democratic backsliding. Gamboa and colleagues (2024) argue that a new wave of autocratization has placed courts at the center of discussions relating to regime change. The authors claim that a process of constitutional balancing, in which a court successfully halts an anti-democratic institutional reform from being enacted, is one of the most powerful methods used by courts in order to hinder democratic backsliding. Although the concept of constitutional balancing applies to circumstances where independent courts have effectively pushed back when presidents attempted to pass reforms that threatened democratic stability, the same concept can be applied to Brazil’s efforts in holding Bolsonaro accountable for trying to undermine and overthrow a democratic system.
Although this specific court case does not analyze any efforts made by Bolsonaro to pass anti-democratic reforms, an attempt to overthrow a democratic system did occur and was facilitated under his leadership, an event which directly attacks democratic stability. Vilhena Vieira has stated that the only reason the STF is demonstrating a “typical” strength towards democratic resilience seen across Brazil’s institutions today is due to its strong foundation. The STF has been known to be a powerful institution that has noticeably “… exercised constitutional jurisdiction” and has a final say on the most crucial political, economic, and social affairs. As described by Vilhena Vieira, Bolsonaro’s trial marks a new era for Brazil— an era that holds individuals of high rank accountable for attempting to undermine and blatantly attack a democratic system.
Brazil’s judicial efforts to move towards democratic resilience is truly revolutionary given the country’s history with oppression imposed by military powers. Brazil still currently experiences the consequences of its 21-year military dictatorship that took place from 1964 to 1985, in which the military overthrew a democratically elected president due to the rise of economic and political struggles. Laura Trajber Waisbich, a political scientist in São Paulo, has stated that she hopes that this ruling will convey an impactful message to the entire country that no one is above the law. This is particularly meaningful for countries that have had authoritarian regimes, and in Brazil’s case, regimes that have supported coups that pose a direct attack to a democratically elected government. Furthermore, the decision to uphold Bolsonaro’s conviction conveys that Brazil now holds powerful individuals accountable for their anti-democratic actions that could potentially harm the entire system. Historically, Brazil’s military has engaged in activities that have played a role in “…destabilizing constitutional order”, and none of the individuals involved have ever been legally penalized. But according to Vilhena Vieira, this trial has sent a message that “the cost of attempting a coup has gone up.”
In addition to Bolsonaro’s conspiracy to overthrow the government, Brazil experienced another attack that has been often compared to what happened on January 6th in the United States’ capitol, soon after former president Joe Biden took office in 2021 following the intense 2020 election race. On January 8th of 2023, thousands of individuals who supported Bolsonaro “…stormed and vandalized government buildings in Praça dos Três Poderes in the capital, Brasília.” The events are certainly similar, especially in the sense that both are violent riots caused by far-right supporters of far-right former presidents meant to attack democratically elected left-wing presidents. Regarding the United States and the impact of the January 6th riots, the attack certainly further polarized an already heavily divided nation. There are individuals within American society who support Donald Trump and don’t believe that blaming him for the violent riots is justified. However, there are other individuals who believe that January 6th was a blatant attack on American democracy and believe that the Department of Justice should have taken a more aggressive stance against the rioters. Similar themes have been discussed regarding the riots that took place on January 8th in Brazil, mainly regarding whether or not Bolsonaro was actually involved in orchestrating the violent riots that occurred. Bolsonaro’s conviction is therefore connected to the January 8th riots, as he is also being charged for crimes that took place during the event. The crimes include “…participating in an armed criminal organization, attempting to violently abolish democracy and organizing a coup.” Both events are certainly brutal efforts to undermine a democratic system and the legitimacy of presidential elections. However, Brazil’s judiciary decided to take action.
It is important to note that Brazil’s path towards democratic resilience can also create further polarization within the country. Polarization can certainly become an issue as soon as judicial action is taken against a powerful political figure. The public naturally becomes further divided based on highly controversial opinions about the actions and measures taken in order to hold politicians accountable. In Brazil, the public reaction to the STF’s decision has been severely divided, with approximately fifty percent of individuals thought to be in favor of Bolsonaro’s conviction, while approximately forty-three percent are against the twenty-seven year prison sentence. Similar to how Trump supporters believe him to be innocent regarding the January 6th riots, many of Bolsonaro’s supporters continue to argue that he is a victim of political persecution, or as president Trump called it, a witch hunt.
All in all, Brazil’s decision to uphold Bolsonaro’s conviction could serve as a positive example for countries across the globe. It is important to show the international community that democratic resilience is still possible to achieve through legal means. Democracies are not perfect, but having strong institutions is crucial for a functioning democracy, as seen in Brazil’s case.
24, FRANCE. “Brazil’s Bolsonaro One Step Closer to Prison after Court Rejects His Appeal.” France 24, FRANCE 24, 15 Nov. 2025, www.france24.com/en/live-news/20251115-prison-looms-for-brazil-s-bolsonaro-after-court-rejects-his-appeal. Accessed 30 Nov. 2025.
Aikman, Ian. “Trump Accuses Brazil of ‘Witch Hunt’ against Bolsonaro.” BBC News, 7 July 2025, www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62gd8e1e5do.
Downie, Andrew. “Bolsonaro’s Attack on Brazil’s Electoral System Sparks Outrage.” The Guardian, 19 July 2022, www.theguardian.com/world/2022/jul/19/bolsonaro-attack-on-brazil-electoral-system-sparks-outrage.
Green, Ruth. “Feature: Bolsonaro Conviction Signals Brazil’s Democratic Resilience.” Ibanet.org, 27 Oct. 2025, www.ibanet.org/Bolsonaro-conviction-signals-Brazil%E2%80%99s-democratic-resilience.
This is a very strong analysis of how Brazil’s judiciary is pushing back against democratic erosion, but I think there’s some worth in exploring a tension the post raises. Can judicial action against anti-democratic leaders actually strengthen democracy, or does it risk deepening the polarization that started the crisis in the first place?
The post notes that roughly half of Brazilians oppose Bolsonaro’s conviction, with many viewing it as political persecution. This presents a real dilemma. On one hand, failing to prosecute a coup attempt shows that elites can attack democracy without consequences. On the other hand, prosecuting a leader with substantial popular support can feed narratives of being the victim and “martyrdom” that move anti-democratic movements further.
This makes me wonder whether the timing and framing of everything matters as much as the accountability itself. Brazil’s STF moved relatively quickly and secured convictions before the 2026 election cycle heats up. Compare this to the U.S., where legal proceedings against Trump stretched across years and became deeply entangled with his political campaigns.
I’d also give a little push back on the conclusion that Brazil’s case is a positive example for other democracies. The post acknowledges that the STF is unusually powerful compared to courts in other countries. Not every democracy has institutions strong enough to take on a popular authoritarian figure and survive the political backlash. For countries with weaker judiciaries, attempting this kind of accountability without the institutional foundation could backfire badly.
What conditions need to be in place for judicial accountability to strengthen rather than destabilize democracy?
Your post does a great job highlighting Brazil as an example of the judiciary’s role in democratic resilience. However, it speaks to a question I continue to ask myself: what happens after an anti-democratic figurehead falls? Does the whole movement fall? Or does someone else step up in their place?
These concerns are echoed in Ecuador’s Democratic Breakdown by Will Freeman. Freeman asserts that once an anti-democratic leader is out of power, without strong democratic institutions, the country’s democracy may not recover. I think this speaks to the question of “what now?”
Trump’s first term began the democratic erosion that is clear today. When Trump lost reelection, citizens stormed the Capitol. We see the same happen in Brazil. Bolsonaro behind bars is an incredible victory for the immediate threat he poses. But what about the mobilized citizenry he left behind, who believe he is being unfairly persecuted, as acknowledged in the post? Are there other major players who can tap into this fervor?
The main argument in the post is that hope for democratic resilience remains, not that democratic resilience is certain. It is true that Brazil’s story showcases the strength of the court. But what political science teaches us is that political events always have a combination of causes. While hope remains, other aspects of democratic resilience will likely need to come together to ensure the strength of Brazilian democracy.
Hi Rebecca! You pose a very interesting conflict in the context of democratic erosion. What we’re seeing in Brazil today is in part so concerning because of the similarities Bolsonaro’s attempted military coup held to Trump’s January 6th attack on the capitol. Each leader denies responsibility for the coup that acted in their favor, there is a clear and present abuse of power from the president as an effort to overthrow election results, and extremist right-wing rhetoric attempts to overthrow traditional democratic beliefs and trust. What you mention, however, is that Bolsonaro was indicted on multiple charges for his participation in the planning of a military coup. The coup did not come to fruition, but nevertheless, Brazil’s extremist president was charged for his involvement in the failed event. Certainly, a country with democratic foundations would have done what was possible to protect the democratic norms of their nation—but our own country took an entirely different course of action than Brazil. Whereas our leader got off with what could comparatively be considered a slap on the wrist, Bolsonaro is serving a 27-year prison sentence and is barred from running for Brazil’s presidential election until 2030.
You also mention that Brazil’s democratic resilience can deepen the political polarization experienced by the nation. I wonder, therefore, if the difference in action taken on behalf of the United States and Brazil might create a polarizing environment of its own. On an international scale, could this variance provoke polarized tensions between the United States and Brazil? Does the lack of international consensus on what qualifies as a undemocratic action (and furthermore how undemocratic actions should be met by the institutions that uphold the foundations of democracy) create newfound international tensions? What happens when multiple nations fail to act united, and what kind of vulnerabilities does this open them up to?
I really like how your post reframes Bolsonaro’s conviction as not just punishment for one leader, but as a break with Brazil’s longer pattern of impunity around coups and military intervention. At the same time, it made me think about how fragile this kind of judicial heroism can be if it isn’t paired with broader institutional and societal change. Courts can raise the “cost of attempting a coup,” as you note, but they can’t by themselves undo the deep networks in the military and political class that made the coup attempt possible in the first place.
One question your post raises for me is whether relying so heavily on the STF risks a different kind of imbalance. If every major accountability battle is fought by judges rather than elected actors, it might unintentionally feed the narrative that Bolsonaro supporters already use: that politics is being “decided by the courts” instead of the people. That doesn’t mean the STF shouldn’t act – doing nothing after an attempted coup would be worse – but it suggests that parties, Congress, and civil society also need visible roles in condemning and sanctioning anti-democratic behavior.
I also wonder about the long-term precedent this sets. In a future scenario where an illiberal leader controls the courts, could the same tools of criminal prosecution be turned against democratic opponents under the language of “protecting democracy”? Your post made me think that the real test of resilience is not just prosecuting Bolsonaro now, but building rules and norms that work even when the next government is less committed to democracy than this one.
This is a very detailed and well done analysis of the case against Bolsonaro. I am in agreement that the case represents an important step in democratic resilience of Brazil, and of equal importance in the construction and consolidation of norms that fight against the corruption and executive aggrandizement that plagues political culture in the country. On the same note, the similarities of January 8 and January 6 are uncanny, but have two very different backgrounds. The United States has never had an authoritarian government, nor coups, military rule, or the unstable path that Brazil has had. Brazil, like many countries in South America have a political culture of Caudillos. These strongmen are tied to some of Brazil’s most popular and divisive figures, such as Getulio Vargas. Bolsonaro shares a lot of attributes of a Caudillo, leading to many traditional and conservative Brazilians to throw their support to him. The United States does not suffer from the same political culture, leading to a much less divisive (although it does not feel like that) than in Brazil. The case is important for Brazil’s future, yes, but they will have to contend with the deep polarization it will bring. Lula is not just a believer in democracy, he is a longtime figure of Brazil’s left, which has been demonized throughout the 20th Century and was the main enemy of the military dictatorship. Supporters of Bolsonaro will only be energized by this fact, and decry the government, likely, as a communist dictatorship. There may not be another coup, as the court is taking steps to avoid one by persecuting the military figures involved, but there may be an even more radical candidate to follow in Bolsonaro’s footsteps in the future. The reaction to Lula will be another test to Brazilian democracy, to not fall into the same trap of paranoia that has marked their history.