Brazil’s Supreme Court on Thursday found former President Jair Bolsonaro guilty of conspiracies related to his failed 2022 reelection bid. The court found that Bolsonaro tried to instigate a military coup and to poison his opponent, current President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva. Bolsonaro, the former president of Latin America’s largest democracy and its wealthiest country, was sentenced to more than 27 years in prison and is barred from ever seeking public office again.
Bolsonaro is one among two dozen elected presidents and prime ministers in recent history around the world who used their time in office to undermine their countries’ democratic institutions. In addition to undermining confidence in elections, the Brazilian leader weakened public and scientific institutions by defunding them. Bolsonaro’s family and political associates faced repeated scandals. As a consequence, the president governed in constant fear of impeachment — a fate that had ended the careers of two prior Brazilian presidents since the country’s return to democracy in 1998. To avoid this outcome, Bolsonaro forged alliances with an array of legislative parties and strange bedfellows. Brazilian political scientists describe the implicit agreement: “The deal is simple: you protect me and I let you run the Country and extract rents from it as you wish.”
Curiously, the decision is also a setback for President Trump here in the United States. Trump views Bolsonaro as an ally who, like him, has been persecuted by leftists and subjected to retribution by courts. The American president tried hard to stop the Brazilian court from ruling against Bolsonaro. In August, Trump sent a letter to Lula, Bolsonaro’s nemesis. Trump threatened to hike most tariffs on Brazilian exports to the U.S. to 50% should his friend remain in legal peril.
Trump’s empathy reflects the two presidents’ parallel paths. Bolsonaro, like Trump, used his time in office to test democratic norms, weaken independent public institutions and vilify his opponents. Both men express a taste for political violence. Where Trump has often mused about beating up hecklers and shooting protesters in the knees, Bolsonaro was nostalgic for military rule in his country. On the campaign trail in 2018, he asserted that Brazil would only change for the better “on the day that we break out in civil war here and do the job that the military regime didn’t do: killing 30,000.”
Both Trump and Bolsonaro tried to cling to power after losing their reelection bids. Heeding their presidents’ claims of electoral fraud, Trump’s supporters rioted in Washington on Jan. 6, 2021, as did Bolsonaro’s in Brasilia, the Brazilian capital, on Jan. 8, 2023. Bolsonaro’s involvement in these post-election acts was the basis of the legal peril that has consumed him.
Trump depicts the Brazilian judge most responsible for Bolsonaro’s prosecution, Chief Justice Alexandre de Moraes, with disdain. Trump describes the case against Bolsonaro as a “witch hunt” in support of a Lula government, describing the current president as a “radical leftist.”
In fact there is little love lost between Lula and De Moraes. Lula is the leader of the social-democratic Workers’ Party; De Moraes is closely associated with the center-right PSDB and is known for his tough-on-crime stances. De Moraes’ activism dates back to the Bolsonaro presidency, when Brazil’s attorney general, appointed by Bolsonaro, was less than energetic in upholding the rule of law. To transpose the Brazilian situation and De Moraes’ activism to the U.S. context, imagine that, viewing the Justice Department’s lack of vigor in prosecuting Trump, Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. had roused himself to encourage legal action against the president.
Many Americans will view Brazil and the Bolsonaro story with a certain envy. Here is a president who dealt with electoral loss by claiming fraud and by instigating his military and civilian supporters to violence, and who has been held decisively to account.
Accountability of public servants is at the heart of democracy. Voters can hold incumbents accountable in elections — political scientists call this “vertical accountability” — as can coequal branches of government, which we call “horizontal accountability.” Would-be autocratic leaders such as Bolsonaro try to escape both kinds of accountability, staying in office even when they lose (the end of vertical accountability) and undermining independent courts, agencies, central banks and whistle-blowers (there goes the horizontal version). In the end, Bolsonaro was held to account both by voters and by the courts.
Trump’s self-insertion into the Bolsonaro prosecution calls attention to another form of accountability, or at least presidential constraint, which has gone missing from our own governing administration. That is the constraint that presidents experience when advisors keep them from acting on instincts that are unwise.
If such advisors were to be found in today’s White House, they might have counseled the president not to threaten Brazil with high tariffs. Doing so risks exacerbating inflation of the prices of key consumer goods (coffee, orange juice), something that is politically dangerous because controlling inflation was an issue at the heart of Trump’s 2024 reelection campaign. The use of tariff threats as a cudgel to try to save an ally from legal peril also gives lie to the purported rationale behind tariffs: protecting U.S. manufacturers or correcting trade imbalances.
Gone, then, are the days when Americans might have served as a model of democratic governance. For all of its own problems, of which there are many, the second-largest country in our hemisphere is schooling us in what democratic accountability looks like.
Susan Stokes is a professor of political science at the University of Chicago and faculty director of the Chicago Center on Democracy. She is the author, most recently, of “The Backsliders: Why Leaders Undermine Their Own Democracies.”
Disclaimer: This news has been automatically collected from the source link above. Our website does not create, edit, or publish the content. All information, statements, and opinions expressed belong solely to the original publisher. We are not responsible or liable for the accuracy, reliability, or completeness of any news, nor for any statements, views, or claims made in the content. All rights remain with the respective source.