If it has been possible to put an end to violence and to reestablish democratic normalcy in the USA, would it be possible in Brazil?
By Mônica Sodré*
11 August 2022 at 00h05
As the Brazilian president’s attacks on institutions and security of the electoral process multiply, comparisons drawn between his actions and those of former USA president Donald Trump ought to take shape. Analogies tend to mark similarities, as if a previous use of the playbook could be able to bring results forward. If within the American outcome it was possible to put an end to violence and to restore democratic normalcy, would it be possible to do so in Brazil? In order to answer this question, it is necessary to analyze at least six elements that highlight important differences.
The relation with the Judicial Court is one of them. In the USA, courts gave Trump a clear warning, by denying 61 out of 62 processes to cancel electoral results. There is a second one: the former president has never attacked or tried to intimidate the Supreme Court Judges, as we can see it here. Despite opposing statements and an attempt to disqualify decisions, directed to both the Judges and the Supreme Court, there was never a threat in not complying to a court order. Here the threats are taking higher shapes.
In relation to the Military Forces, the former president was not capable of keeping a favorable assessment or military support. In Brazil, there is a lack of clarity regarding this position. If on one hand, the request for collective resign of commanders, in 2021, can be taken as resilience, on the other hand, there are more than 6,000 military officers holding positions in the federal public administration. And part of the group still puts in question the integrity of the electoral process.
A third element is the way of carrying the elections. In the USA, there is no federal legislation to regulate elections, nor there is a controlling national authority, which is the role of our Electoral Supreme Court (TSE). From voting itself to counting the votes, each one of the states have their autonomy. That way, Trump could raise suspicious on key-states, but it was impossible to discredit the whole process, as there are 50 “independent” elections. Here, there is a logic of discredit towards the TSE system, which is the electoral process backbone.
The behavior of key-people is another factor. Not only the institutional duty, but equally values guide the behavior of some individuals. For instance, there was the American case where the vice president Mike Pence and his driver did not grant Trump a place to go to the Capitol. Here, one of the episodes of restraint belonged to the president of the Chamber, deputy Arthur Lira, who buried the discussion about printed ballots, but chooses silence in the face of the attacks that followed.
A fifth point concerns targeting violence. In the USA, the attacks have target institutions. The Capitol invasion was an attack to a democracy symbol, to the Parliament, and not a dispute among people who have different positions. In Brazil, the logic has been designed to eliminate opponents. We are far beyond the attacks on institutions, which is still centralized in the Judiciary.
Finally, allegations of electoral fraud made by former president Trump, despite longevity, have always remained an internal affair. Here, by summoning ambassadors to expose the country to a discourse based on lies concerning the electoral process, the president has turned the issue into a foreign policy matter, seeking international support in order to refuse to accept the results. By doing so with the presence of ministers of the Comptroller General of Brazil (CGU) and the Office of the Attorney General of Brazil (AGU), he showed the endorsement of the two main structures of the State.
It was José Saramago who said in his essay named “Blindness” that the worst blindness is the mental one, as it prevents us from recognizing what lies ahead. Let’s not allow that the apparent similarities blind us: it looks the same, but it is not. May civil society, may political and business leaderships, may political parties, courts and the academia – all democrats – be able to see clearly and get together in order to face what lies ahead of us.