The similarities between the two deeply divided societies were deep-rooted. Both were shaken by the disillusionment of millions of voters who felt disenfranchised by a liberal order run by cosmopolitan and corrupt urban elites. Brazil appeared to be even more polarized than the United States. Trump won 46.9% of the vote in the 2020 presidential election. Bolsonaro won 49.1% in 2022.
But just a year after a pro-Bolsonaro crowd rioted in Plaza Torre Poderes, the aftermath of a parallel attack on democracy was very different. .
Mr. Trump has a seemingly inseparable bond with about half of American voters. He is the clear favorite to run as the Republican candidate for a rematch with Joe Biden in November. Bolsonaro, by contrast, cannot even run for office. His passport was confiscated this month, but he was lucky not to be jailed.
For those concerned that the United States is heading toward another political catastrophe, a question worth asking is how Brazil dodged the bullet. Does Brazil’s experience offer lessons that might help protect American democracy from candidates willing to do whatever it takes to regain their grip on power? Unfortunately, the answer is probably not.
First, Brazil’s Supreme Court leans to the left. Most of the judges were appointed during the government of Lula (who also served as president from 2003 to 2011) and his successor, Dilma Rousseff, from the Labor Party.
Brazil also has institutional tools that the United States does not have to maintain its electoral process. First, the United States does not have the Brazilian law that prohibits anyone convicted of a serious crime from running for office for eight years. Under U.S. law, Trump could run for president from prison.
We have others, too. Even before Bolsonaro was arrested and stripped of his passport for attempting a real coup, the Superior Electoral Court responsible for overseeing election laws last year rejected false claims that Brazil’s electronic voting system had been rigged. The former president was convicted based on the allegations.
No such court exists in the United States because elections are a collection of efforts controlled by each state. The Supreme Court will only consider voting rules and election laws if they violate federal law or the Constitution. As such, the decision is subject to the weight of constitutional precedent. And that can lead to conundrums like, “Maybe he incited an insurrection, and that should bar him from public office, but what if we let the state of Colorado do that?” There is.
But the most crucial difference between Brazil and the United States is not about their political systems. It was largely because of the absence of the American Republican Party that America was able to emerge from the attempted rebellion and re-establish a more stable political balance.
Francis Lee, a political scientist at Princeton University, reviewed the evidence from the turbulent months after Election Day 2020 and found there is much to admire about America’s checks and balances. Despite the turmoil that Mr. Trump caused after his defeat, the system held up fairly well for a while — and was buoyed by the Republican Party’s sense of political self-preservation.
No matter what Rudy Giuliani and Kraken’s lawyers argued, state courts have rejected the Trump campaign’s various claims of election fraud. Republican state legislatures and attorneys general resisted invitations to find additional votes. No one refused to certify the election. Republican leaders clearly affirmed the legitimacy of Biden’s election. When it mattered, Vice President Mike Pence acted.
After Trump was impeached in the House, Republicans in the Senate voted against conviction. But “that was a miscalculation,” Lee told me. “Republicans thought he was no longer a threat.” But as his poll numbers rebounded, the Republican Party clung to its instincts of political survival and capitulated, earning the unwavering loyalty of half of America’s two-party system. I held it out to him.
All but nine Republicans elected to the 117th Congress in 2020 and all but one Republican senator (Susan Collins of Maine) were from districts supported by President Trump. Lee writes: “Lawmakers needed to maintain the trust and support of voters who had no confidence in the results of the 2020 election and who would reelect Mr. Trump as president if given the chance.”
Brazil’s political ecosystem would never have been balanced like this, simply because it does not have such cohesion. Brazil has 28 political parties in Congress, some defined by ideology and others by region. Members are known to jump from one member to another. Alliances across party lines happen all the time. Almost everyone is looking to make a deal.
Bolsonaro did not have the influence over the voting base necessary to scare this many cats into line. “Bolsonaro’s base of support was much weaker and more diffuse than President Trump’s,” said Monica de Boer of the Peterson Institute for International Economics. She said: “Because Brazil’s political system is more fragmented.”
Let’s throw out the wild speculation that many Republicans want to escape the clutches of MAGA. Political conversations will be more productive if they feel protected from the former president’s wrath and can trade freely. Indeed, even if about half of American voters could choose between parties representing, say, the West, Libertarians, Farmers, or the South, Mr. Trump may not enjoy their allegiance.
Still, it is probably a stretch to think that the United States should or could try to embrace Brazil’s transactional, liberal politics. The only way to protect American democracy is for the Republican political class to regain its mettle. The factions that run America’s decentralized and politicized state and federal institutions believe it is in their interest, or perhaps their sense of duty, to toe the line and refuse to surrender the day to authoritarianism. I’m sure there are.