What to Know When Covering Anti-Democratic Extremism in Brazil
The situation in Brazil seems comparable to the United States at first glance. When far-right former President Jair Bolsonaro lost his re-election bid to Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (known mononymously as “Lula” to Brazilians), his supporters reacted in a remarkably similar way to former U.S. President Donald Trump’s supporters—they stormed Brazil’s congressional buildings. However, the United States and Brazil have vastly different political landscapes, and while similar at first glance, there is much more driving anti-democracy movements in Brazil that American reporters have yet to fully grasp.
Brazil is a deeply divided nation. After center-right President Michael Temer’s office was embroiled in a corruption scandal that involved most of Brazil’s federal government, Brazilians turned to populist Bolsonaro to try and break the onslaught of back-to-back economic crises and corruption scandals that it had seen in the last two decades. “People [were] definitely talking a lot about security and violence in their neighborhoods, and they’re genuinely fed up with that they perceive as a failure of the state to take care of security issues,” said Benjamin Junge, an anthropology professor at the State University of New York at New Paltz and a Fulbright fellow at the Federal University of Pernambuco in Brazil.
Not only that, but Lula—Brazil’s current President—was serving a prison sentence for corruption at the time of Bolsonaro’s election. Some Brazilians believe that Lula being President again is a symbol of a corrupt system that’s beyond fixing. “Right before Lula was found guilty and went to prison [in] January [2018], the matriarch of a family that I’ve been following very closely, who is a widow and is 66 years old, was watching TV. At one moment she said, “Oh my god, is there any way I can still love this man [Lula]?” explained Junge.
“When he went to prison, she posted something on Facebook, saying she was indignada — fed up. She alternates between a deep love for Lula and a kind of hate for him because he seems to have screwed everything up. The guy who did a lot of good and could have done much more but didn’t.” In fact, Lula’s trial was overturned by a judge on Brazil’s Supreme Court that stated the trial judge who presided when Lula was found guilty was irrevocably biased—which led to Lula’s release from prison.
Much like Trump, Bolsonaro worked to undermine public confidence in Brazil’s democratic process before the election. As a result, several of his supporters have rejected the results of Brazil’s election entirely and believe Bolsonaro is still the duly-elected President of Brazil. Moreover, anxieties persist about the loss of “God, fatherland, and family,” a common motto that Bolsonaro supporters cite as their most important issues. Bolsonaro also incited supporters toward violence by declaring he would have one of three paths out of the presidential seat: “being arrested, killed, or victory.” Instead, Bolsonaro was in the United States when the attack on Congress happened, and took to Twitter to condemn the "pillaging and invasions of public buildings as occurred today" perpetrated by his supporters.
January 6, 2021—the date of the U.S. Capitol insurrection—and January 8, 2023, the date of Bolsonaro supporters’ attacks on Congress, also differ in that Brazil’s institutions took swift action. Within minutes, 400 people had been arrested, and within 24 hours, over 1,500. Investigations have already uncovered financial networks that chartered the buses to bring supporters to Congress in Brasilia for their attack. Brazil’s federal government is also investigating the role of current politicians in aiding and abetting the attacks, something the United States has drawn sharp criticism for dragging its feet on.
Misinformation and disinformation aided and abetted by Bolsonaro remain a major problem in Brazil. The similarities of the situations between the U.S. and Brazil are so gripping that both current U.S. President Biden and Brazilian President Lula have committed to a “permanent dialogue” between the two countries “to strengthen democracy.” Whether or not either country will address the root issues plaguing citizens and causing lack of trust in government and in the democratic process remains to be seen.
