Auhona Majumdar, Publications Editor and Contributor of the UCL Student Pro Bono Committee.
A cycle completes as the world enters January, a month of promise, of resolution. Once marked by the world as a period of renewal and hope of what is to be a less tumultuous time, the month of January has suffered a sharp blow to its reputation. The ghosts of January 6th may have faded into political obscurity yet the spirit remains. The adolescent affair, condemned globally as a mockery of democracy, is no longer the sole example of the lengths electoral “sore losers” are willing to go.
Since the beginning of his leadership, former Brazilian leader Jair Bolsonaro drew parallels to the then incumbent Donald Trump. Their policies of fervent nationalism, stringent right-wing social and economic policy, and rampant outspoken behaviour made both figures some of the most-well known and polarising political figures globally. Trump’s endorsement in the 2022 Brazilian elections of Bolsonaro over opposition candidate Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (Lula) came as no surprise.
Lula’s own victory brought on memories of that of Biden. Lula, much like his American counterpart, held high office in Brazil as former president and whilst responsible for a new wave of “pink tide”, Lula appeared not without red hands. A mere year before the beginning of the elections Lula’s political rights were restored, having been convicted on money laundering and corruption charges in July 2017.
Lula’s victory earlier this year was marked globally as a beacon of hope and movement against the often outlandish and reactionary style of Bolsonaro; the reaction within Brazil, nonetheless, was ambivalent. Months of speculation as to what would occur should Bolsonaro lose reached it’s culmination in the early weeks of the New Year. Just like America before it, it was now Brazil’s turn to experience a moment of shocking political violence.
What seemed like a country peacefully mourning the loss of football pioneer Pele, was struck by a shocking yet not unexpected attack. Brazil’s government headquarters, Praça dos Três Poderes, was attacked in an invasion led by pro-Bolsonaro partisans and rioters. Images released brought worldwide condemnation and shock at the thought of yet another juvenile rampaging through the government halls leaving behind physical destruction and the air of ongoing political instability in what seemed to be a positive time.
At the time, the events were condemned as yet another symbol of political abnormality and disintegration, yet months later, have fallen into global obscurity. There remains the question: have we become so apathetic to such attacks on democracy? Or perhaps, it is representative of the world’s imperishable orbit around the United States and, in contrast, our view of Brazil in an apolitical limbo?
More likely it seems that the affair in Brazil is not as comparative to its American counterpart as the media had reported. The aftermath seemed to possess the same symbolic sights of militants managing to penetrate a sacred political sight but knowing not what to do with it. Early signs of Bolsonaritas preparation for the storm had been widespread concern. It seemed as though a riot was what was desired regardless of the election results, as a symbol of Bolsonaro’s ongoing influence over the populace.
Instead, appeared a series of juvenile rebellions partaking in anti-democratic blunders. Worried were Brazilians with knowledge of Bolsonaros’ aligned sergeants, police and truckers attempting a series of blockades and mass suppression throughout the previous weeks leading to election through blockading bus routes of Lula supporters. None, however, coordinated and simultaneous and thus, appeared less as coordinated action and more as emotional outbursts rapidly pacified by their own naivety.
What was left to be questioned could only be stated as: what now? The global condemnation marked a positive historical shift, notably from the US which often encouraged right wing uprisings in South America. In moving forward, it was hoped words of condemnation were not the sole response. The reaction to January 6th was relatively straightforward. The Capitol acted as a symbol of global democracy and in turn, the Democrats have turned the riot self-servingly into national trauma and sacralised account of launching higher surveillance domestically.
Lula’s campaign followed suit. As a mere broad front to save democracy, policies were curtailed aside in the election and Lula, much like Biden, acted as a symbol of nostalgia. The “golden days” of calm, collected political rationale – conspiracy but not corruption free. This would be a strong ground for Lula to champion the broad consensus politics in his campaign.
It is without doubt that in both the US and Brazil, the attacks were committed by vandals, who are to be punished in accordance with the law and all additional instigatory parties investigated and prosecuted. The path forward, nonetheless, was not without risk – inevitably such heavy-handed persecution shall grant Bolsonaro’s supporters the victimhood for the false narrative they seek to progress.
Upholding democracy is no buzzword. Nor is it the simple task Lula has seemingly implied it is. As with Trump’s election, the growth of populist leaders around the world is no coincidence, with extensive periods of economic instability, corruption and electoral dysfunction having given rise to such figures. Whether Lula has the manpower to reassure Brazil constructive reform is coming and deliver conclusive change, that remained inconclusive. Simultaneously, the American approach of national trauma and scapegoating in the time of political instability has yet to be successful – Lula’s next few months, as such, were crucial.
As Lula’s reconciliation project began, it was clear no good would have come from enabling the extreme Right to capture the spirit of revolt, a notably difficult task when one’s Presidential campaign was run merely on being the sole party and choice for democracy. Widespread global condemnation and a judicial crusade followed establishing Brazil’s determination in marking the date as an act of terrorism. Lula’s wider policy as such has remained fervently in the realm of peace-mongering, continuing to the withholding arms in ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict. Whilst Lula seemingly failed the global Ukraine “litmus test”, the position is unsurprising given his staunch focus on national progress, which seems irreconcilable without the symbolic and semi-economic stamp of the BRICS alliance (composed of Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), as marked by a strategic visit to the so-called “BRICS Bank” in Shanghai earlier in May.
Regardless, Brazil’s position global position is seemingly moving towards restoration. Having limited its contentions with major US and China led blocs, it appears its long-awaited bid for a seat at the UN Security Counsel may finally come to fruition. Regardless, this period marks a further augmentation of sustained political phenomena: where in the face of a global rebellious and reactionary “Right”, the “Left” has claimed to become the defender of civilisation and social order. Can progress ever be made under such staunch schematic politics?
Party vs Party has disappeared and we have reached a narrative of Good vs Evil. In Brazil, consensus stated good has won this time. But as with all stories of this kind, all it takes for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing and therein lies Lula’s task over the next few years.
Disclaimer: The views and opinions expressed are those of the authors. They are for informational purposes only and do not necessarily reflect the official policy or position of UCL SPBC.