Opinion

Brazil saw an attempted coup, even if a failed one

Accountability for what happened is not simply a matter of justice, but crucial for stabilizing Brazil’s democracy into the future

Bolsonaro supporters occupy the presidential palace in Brasília. Photo: Gabriela Biló/Folhapress

In June of last year, I wrote for The Brazilian Report about the parallels between the trajectories that led the U.S. to January 6 — the storming of the Capitol following then-President Donald Trump’s refusal to concede his electoral loss in 2020 — and Brazil’s leading up to the 2022 election. Unsurprisingly, yet shockingly, we now have our very own January 8 as a day of infamy in the bumpy history of Brazilian democracy.

In the days following the attack on the Three Powers Square, it became somewhat fashionable to view it as a sort of January 6 cosplay. 

While the similarities are obvious, the moment was rather different: there was nothing comparable with the Electoral College certification that was taking place in the U.S. Senate when the Capitol building was invaded. In Brazil, the new president had already been inaugurated. In fact, the buildings were all, by and large, empty at the time they were stormed and ransacked.

All of this is fair enough. 

But I would again not be surprised if we see the parallels continue in yet another way: I find it very likely that, as has been the case in the U.S, information that starts emerging (and, in fact, already has emerged) paints an even darker picture of the events than the one we had as they were unfolding. 

Far from a hopeless, delirious, pathetic mob, the attackers were part of a serious coup attempt, no less real for having failed — and for always being likely to fail.

The close connections between the attack and the campsites that had been erected outside military garrisons, calling for an intervention by the Armed Forces, were clear from the start. Similarly, the evident half-heartedness of the security forces in trying to prevent the invasion of the buildings was there for all to see at the time. 

What has emerged since the day of the attack has only raised more questions about the tolerance of the Armed Forces — as an institution and not as rogue individuals — with respect to the entire endeavor of contesting the election’s results. 

In the case of the U.S., the investigations led by the January 6 select panel created by Congress revealed the attack on the Capitol to be the culmination of a broad effort led by Mr. Trump to prevent the transfer of power. In fact, it was a desperate hail-Mary attempt after other avenues had failed. 

I have little doubt that any similar investigative effort in Brazil would likely reveal a coordinated, multi-pronged attempt to impede the transition and subvert the election. Although the press kept noting how depressed and morose and silent former President Jair Bolsonaro was, and many joked about his dubious work ethic, he was likely hard at work.

Now, one may ask: why is it important to keep digging into an effort that had little chance of succeeding? Why not “move on?” Isn’t Mr. Bolsonaro a figure destined to disappear in the political rearview mirror?

The answer is simple: what we do now affects the probabilities of what might transpire in the future. And the fact that we witnessed what amounts to a coup attempt, mobilizing a sizable contingent of people, and with non-trivial support among the security forces, could be a harbinger of worse things to come, if not addressed.

The key point is that the existence of a large number of voters who question the legitimacy of the election — and as such, of the institutional democratic process as presently constituted — will keep exerting a large gravitational pull over our political system. 

Right now, any force intending to occupy the right of the political spectrum must reckon with the need to speak to those voters in order to be electorally competitive. 

This generates a possibly irresistible temptation for all politicians on the right to accommodate the extremist bloc, irrespective of one’s own proclivities towards extremism; if you don’t do it, someone else will outflank you by just a little bit in that direction. 

Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco's reflection in a shattered mirror in the Senate hall. Photo: bolsonaro
Senate President Rodrigo Pacheco’s reflection in a shattered mirror in the Senate hall. Photo: Gabriela Biló/Folhapress

It is easy to see how that generates, if not a full race to the extreme, at the very least an unwillingness to cut the far-right loose. We are already seeing that — in politicians trying to shift blame for January 8 onto the government or calling for leniency towards those involved. Or just wanting to move on.

This dynamic is very reminiscent of how the U.S. Republican Party quickly reabsorbed the so-called “MAGA” Trump-inspired faction — and even pushed out politicians, such as former Congresswoman Liz Cheney, who refused to “move on.” The party as a whole realizes that its electoral prospects hinge on keeping that faction on board.

I can already hear many reaching for the differences between the respective political systems to try and argue why Brazil will not follow the path of the U.S.: we do not have strong parties and party loyalties, Mr. Bolsonaro himself has proven to be a relatively weak leader as far as building institutional support is concerned, and so on. 

Again, these points are fair enough. But some of the differences do not work to our advantage. 

Yes, we have nothing like a Republican Party that, even if taken over by extremists, still commands the loyalty and votes of just about half of the electorate. But note that any candidate to the right of the spectrum need not obtain anywhere near a majority: they need to have enough votes to get them into a runoff against the Workers’ Party, and that will trigger a movement not unlike the partisan pull that exists in the U.S.

On top of that, we have the wild card that is absent in the U.S.: the Armed Forces. 

One can be pretty sure that the U.S. military will not interfere in politics, steeped as they are in a culture of respect for democracy and civilian control. Brazil’s military has already shown itself to be very different: they crave political influence and will try to exert it. Ideally, as things stand now, from a relative distance, but that could well change.

In fact, one thing we may still learn about January 8 is the extent to which the failure of the subversive effort has hitherto hinged on the steadfast and vocal position of the Joe Biden administration against any institutional rupture. 

It is not hard to imagine that a Republican administration — under Donald Trump for sure, but very likely under any plausible alternative — might have a very different take on the matter. Incentives might be very different in that scenario.

For all these reasons, accountability for what has just happened is not simply a matter of justice, but crucial for stabilizing our democracy into the future. Unfortunately, what makes it necessary is also what makes it hard.