In October 2021, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva defeated incumbent president Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil’s run-off presidential election. Months later, thousands of pro-Bolsonaro rioters stormed Praça dos Tres Poderes (Plaza of the Three Powers). The Brazilian military arrested hundred of protesters following the invasion, and the Brazilian Supreme Court has agreed to investigate Bolsonaro’s role in the events. Bolsonaro, obviously, maintains his innocence, using his distance from the events as a buffer. But can he truly be innocent?
Even though he did not personally mobilize and lead these protests, Bolsonaro laid the foundation for this attack on democracy. Like Trump in the January 6th storming of the U.S. Capitol, Bolsonaro’s emotional calls for action and inflammatory speeches fanned the flames of unrest and undemocratic action. Bolsonaro’s radicalized followers claimed to fight for freedom and democracy but responded with highly undemocratic actions, and Bolsonaro did not call for his supporters to stand down. He instead stoked the fire and fled the country before he could get burned.
By planting seeds of doubt in Brazil’s democratic institutions, Bolsonaro set the stage for a revolt. Leading up to his defeat in October, Bolsonaro loudly (and vaguely) accused the Supreme Court of working against him and the voting system of being prone to fraud, despite a lack of evidence supporting these claims. After losing the election by the slimmest margin since Brazil’s return to democracy in 1980 (49.1% to 50.9%), Bolsonaro went silent. Bolsonaro’s supporters began posting memes degrading Lula’s integrity, videos claiming Bolsonaro’s true victory, and petitions calling for military intervention flooded social media. Two days later, Bolsonaro gave a brief and ambiguous speech, thanking his supporters and promising to “continue to follow all the commandments of [the] constitution.” But he did not concede defeat or name his successor by name. Bolsonaro’s chief of staff followed by promising to cooperate with Lula’s team for the handover of power.
Following Brazilian tradition, during the inauguration celebration, the former leader presents the presidential sash to the new president in a very literal demonstration of a transition of power. Bolsonaro was not interested. To avoid this tradition, he flew to Florida on the presidential plane one day before Lula was sworn in on January 1, 2023. The idea of a grown man fleeing the country to avoid physically giving up his presidential sash seems petty. Unfortunately, his actions in the wake of the election go deeper than that. Bolsonaro’s actions (and lack thereof) signify a conscious attempt to spread doubt, stoke chaos, and erode Brazilian democracy.
Bolsonaro’s charisma and power over his followers started years before the January 8th invasion. During his first campaign, Bolsonaro tapped into the strong Christian base of the Brazilian electorate, allowing himself to be blessed publicly and called a “Messiah” by some religious supporters. Though his support from the leaders of major evangelical churches waned in this second campaign, his religious clientele remained fervent supporters of their right-wing candidate. Considered by some scholars a key component in the recent rise of right-wing neopopulism, Bolsonaro portrays himself as a mirror to the people while also setting himself up as an extraordinary human being. His charisma and ability to appeal to the “common man” (or his idea of the common man) created an almost cult-like following among his radical followers. His followers look to him for leadership, not the democratic institutions he is supposed to support.
In addition, Bolsonaro is an echo of Brazil’s authoritarian past. His election in 2018 amid one of the worst economic recessions in recent history shocked Brazilian military-civilian relations. Bolsonaro vowed to bring Brazilian generals back into the political arena. He did this by placing senior military officials in several critical positions in his administration and continuing his attitude of dictatorship nostalgia (Make Brazil Great Again, anyone?). For the first time since the military dictatorship ended 40 years earlier, a military man was in power, and his military friends shared his power. Unsurprisingly, his followers turned immediately to the military when the election did not go their way.
Nicknamed the “Trump of the Tropics,” Bolsonaro exhibits many similarities with former U.S. President Donald Trump, especially in his use of social media. Using fake news and disinformation to stir doubt, Bolsonaro relied on Instagram, Twitter, Facebook and a growing messaging platform called Telegram to communicate with his followers. Two days after the January 8th attacks, Bolsonaro posted a video (that was quickly deleted) claiming that Lula did not win the election but was instead chosen by the Supreme Court and election officials.
Being a sore loser is not a crime. Inciting an invasion of government buildings and actively undermining democracy is another story. Bolsonaro created a cult of personality, sowed doubt in a democratic election and openly admired Brazil’s authoritarian past. His actions and the actions of his supporters actively sought to dismantle Brazilian democracy in the name of “justice.” In March of this year, after three months “exiled” in Florida, Bolsonaro returned to Brazil. The world is watching to see what repercussions he will face and whether justice will truly be served.
Populist leaders indeed make it difficult to tell if their actions are in good faith or constitute democracy endangerment. Your article does well to point out that Jair Bolsonaro was on the latter end with acts like authoritarian nostalgia, involvement of the military in civilian government positions, inciting violence, denying the symbolic transfer of power, and general populist strategies. However, I don’t think that appealing to religious ideas in order to win over certain religious groups is democracy eroding per se. If that was true then nearly all political actors would be acting in bad faith and antidemocratic! One way that this might tie into your argument is that promoting controversial religious ideas led to further polarization and violence depending on the ideas that were promoted. Regardless, it’s interesting that your argument seems more credible now that Bolosnaro was convicted of several political crimes and barred from running for any political office till 2030.