In a memorable speech in which he announced his decision to withdraw his presidential bid, former judge (and now former presidential candidate) Sergio Moro stated that Brazil needs an alternative to rid itself of extremes, instability, and radicalization.
Throughout his short-lived and erratic campaign, Mr. Moro insisted on portraying frontrunners Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Jair Bolsonaro as equally undemocratic, situated on opposite ends of the political spectrum. Indeed, this false equivalence has been pervasive in this year’s presidential campaign, echoed by pundits, analysts, and voters.
It is inaccurate to say former President Lula and incumbent President Bolsonaro are cut from the same cloth. While they may be similar on many issues, but differ wildly on what is most important: adherence to democratic norms and institutions.
During his three-plus years as president, Mr. Bolsonaro has pushed Brazil’s democratic needle towards authoritarianism at every opportunity and in every possible manner. Meanwhile, for all of his flaws, Lula never posed a threat to Brazil’s democratic order.
Pushing the authoritarian needle
Political scientists Scott Mainwaring and Aníbal Pérez-Liñan state that actors have a “normative preference for democracy” when they value democracy intrinsically — that is, above any specific policy outcome. We can build on this view to state that anti-democratic actors overtly attack democratic institutions and test their limits.
Last week, Mr. Bolsonaro pardoned a lawmaker who had made online threats to physically assault Supreme Court justices. As The Brazilian Report noted, this was the first time a head of state has moved to nullify a Supreme Court decision since Brazil’s return to democracy.
To put things into perspective, imagine if President Dilma Rousseff (2011-2016) had used her pen to pardon her party allies convicted of corruption and money laundering in the so-called