RIO DE JANEIRO — A deeply divided nation. A right-wing populist questioning the integrity of the electoral process while refusing to acknowledge defeat. Supporters launching an insurrection in the capital to maintain his grip on power.
This scenario captures not only the events surrounding Donald Trump in the United States but also reflects the situation of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil. Both countries, which represent the largest democracies in the Western Hemisphere, encountered similar hurdles in 2020 and 2022, respectively, but their responses through institutional channels have differed significantly.
Brazil acted quickly to bar Bolsonaro from holding office until 2030, a decision that could extend further due to ongoing criminal investigations. In contrast, Republicans in the Senate acquitted Trump during an impeachment trial that could have prevented him from running for the presidency again. Meanwhile, the legal proceedings in the United States progressed at a slow pace as the courts navigated the complexities of prosecuting a former president.
The varying methods of addressing the issues with Bolsonaro and Trump serve as a compelling example of how democracies attempt — and occasionally falter — when holding their highest leaders accountable. These situations are under close scrutiny amidst growing worries about the instability of democratic governance worldwide.
Brazil’s youthful democracy, only four decades old, emerged from a military dictatorship, and memories of authoritarian rule still resonate with many Brazilians, a sentiment captured in the recent film “I’m Still Here.” This backdrop, however, did not hinder Bolsonaro, a staunch supporter of the former regime, from winning his first presidential election decisively.
Conversely, the United States in 2020 did not have any recent experience of domestic authoritarianism, which some experts believe contributed to a level of naivete among key political figures. Steven Levitsky, the author of “How Democracies Die” and head of the David Rockefeller Center for Latin American Studies at Harvard, noted that some conservative members of the Supreme Court did not recognize Trump as a significant threat. “Many within the U.S. establishment still struggle to fathom the possibility of democratic collapse,” Levitsky stated.
The U.S. system lacks effective constitutional mechanisms, unlike Brazil, which has provisions to disqualify parties and candidates deemed dangerous. Brazil garnered its constitution as a shield against possible coups after its dictatorship, helping to fortify its democratic structure. This framework empowers the electoral authority to annul candidates or remove politicians whose actions jeopardize electoral legitimacy, enforcing decisions uniformly across the country, unlike the U.S. state-by-state approach.
Six months post-Bolsonaro’s presidency, Brazil’s electoral court ruled him ineligible until 2030, citing abuse of power and unfounded allegations regarding the electronic voting system. Justice Edson Fachin remarked on Brazil’s resilient democracy, reinforced by its constitution. He highlighted that the electoral court exercised caution, choosing to act only after Bolsonaro’s narrow defeat to leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva.
The Brazilian electoral body maneuvered effectively, neither abruptly interrupting the electoral process nor providing Bolsonaro with martyrdom, which ultimately diminished his political capital.
In the U.S., a binary two-party system exists, with Trump significantly influencing one of the parties. Conversely, Brazil’s political landscape consists of numerous parties, which allows for more fluid alliances that do not necessitate unwavering loyalty to Bolsonaro. As election results came in, a range of political leaders from different parties promptly acknowledged the results, which included a key endorsement from former Bolsonaro supporter and lower house Speaker Arthur Lira. Brian Winter, a veteran observer of Brazilian politics, contrasted this with the U.S. response, suggesting that if similar actions had been taken by figures like Mitch McConnell, the historical outcome might have differed.
Bolsonaro remains determined, declaring his aspirations for the 2026 presidential race, supported by polls indicating he could be a strong contender. His allies are also seeking guidance from Trump, whom Bolsonaro greatly admires. “With Trump, I am confident that new opportunities are arising,” stated Bia Kicis, a lawmaker and dedicated Bolsonaro advocate.
On the legal front, U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland designated a special counsel to investigate Trump’s efforts to contest the 2020 election results, a move that came two years later. The special counsel, Jack Smith, release report indicated that prosecution would have ensued had Trump not been re-elected, thereby eliminating the possibility of an indictment.
In contrast, Brazilian authorities initiated investigations into Bolsonaro’s actions shortly after his presidency ended, looking into the January 8 insurrection, potential embezzlement of luxurious gifts from Saudi Arabia, and allegations regarding a falsified COVID-19 vaccination record. Each of these issues has led to formal accusations, with the Prosecutor General’s office considering whether to proceed with charges. Bolsonaro could be facing trial in these matters at the Supreme Court by next year, and any conviction could prolong his disqualification from elections and even lead to imprisonment. Bolsonaro, however, has rebuffed any allegations of wrongdoing and accused the courts of unjustly targeting him.
Over time, Bolsonaro intensified his criticisms of the judiciary, often directing his ire at Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who oversees several investigations into Bolsonaro and his associates. At one point, Bolsonaro proclaimed he would ignore de Moraes’ rulings, raising alarms about an impending institutional crisis. Still, the court has remained steadfast in its resolve.
While there is discontent regarding the investigations from Bolsonaro’s far-right followers, some moderate analysts have also expressed their concerns. “I would be careful to present this as an ideal model, as disqualifying a popular leader could also undermine democracy,” cautioned Winter, highlighting anxieties from some Brazilian jurists about the fairness and integrity of the inquiries.
In both the U.S. and Brazil, authorities are pursuing legal actions against the participants of the respective uprisings. In the U.S., over 1,500 individuals involved in the January 6 Capitol riot face federal charges, while in Brazil, 898 individuals have been prosecuted for their involvement in the January 8 unrest, with 371 being convicted and others reaching leniency agreements. Additional investigations continue to unfold. Brazil’s president affirmed that everyone responsible would face consequences.
The contrasting situations between Bolsonaro and Trump reflect broader themes regarding democratic resilience in the face of populism, presenting critical lessons for global governance.
