Analyzing the oratory of both is no simple task; It is interesting to observe with party exemption which makes the communication of these leaders at the same time so full of failures and so impactful
And they are undoubtedly the two biggest protagonists in recent decades. Much of this projection comes from the peculiar way they developed a personal way to communicate. Each has created its own style, marked by emotional and direct aspects, sometimes disordered but extremely effective to connect with most voters.
Analyzing the oratory of both is no simple task, especially in a fierce polarization scenario like the current one. This is because, as the confirmation bias shows -and to some extent the theory of reception itself -the public usually accepts better what is aligned with their convictions and rejects what is not convenient. Even so, it is interesting to observe with party exemption which makes the communication of these leaders so full of failures and so impactful.
Bolsonaro’s strengths
Bolsonaro never intended to be a conventional speaker. His speech rests himself precisely on breaking protocols, sharp improvisation, short sentences, and tireless repetition of slogans and religious expressions. “Brazil above all, God above all” is no longer just a campaign slogan to becoming a true identity brand.
Even the biblical passages it usually quotes, such as John 8:32 -“You will know the truth, and the truth will free you” -go beyond mere quotes, as they are calculated strategies of approach. Simple language and constant repetitions fulfill a double function, to facilitate memorization and reinforce the impression of conviction.
Bolsonaro’s weaknesses
His strength lies in the image he built with the supporters, that of someone who says what he thinks, ”it costs what it costs. But it is exactly this feature, seen as virtue to many, which also represents its Achilles heel. Frequently, Bolsonaro disregards context, faces journalists, ridicules opponents, and ends up harmed by his own words.
Many statements during the pandemic, even if they contained a real source, were perceived as insensitive or dangerous. Lotted by the opposition and the press as uninformed, these lines ended up to wear out their image with the broader portions of the population.
Lula’s strengths
Lula, in contrast, has developed a communication style based on emotion, overcoming narrative and innate charisma. He learned to speak like the people and to the people. Naturally improvises, it employs metaphors, impact phrases, and mastery colloquial expressions. It alternates between moments of indignation, relaxation and affection, creating an intense and captivating relationship with its audience. His discourse often privileges intuition over rationality, relying on shared feelings with the audience. This was its trademark and its great strength for decades.
The weaknesses of Lula
This same spontaneity, however, began to turn against him. On several recent occasions, improvisation has resulted in inappropriate comments, diplomatic gaffes, incorrect information, and statements rejected by different groups. Lula has lost part of the precision and clarity he has already shown to have.
As a result, his credibility has weakened, and not by chance the president currently faces his lowest popular approval rates since the beginning of his political trajectory.
In the light of the classics
If we consider the perspective of the classical tradition, Aristotle, Quintilian and Cicero would probably disapprove of both. Neither fits the ideal of the perfect speaker, which harmonizes reason, emotion and moral integrity. Machiavelli, however, would remember that in politics effectiveness does not always depend on rhetorical perfection, but the ability to conquer and maintain followers, even if this behavior implies transgressing rules.
Lula, with his disconnected speeches and public stumbling, compromises logic and decorum. Bolsonaro, with his aggressive and inflexible stance, challenges these same principles, and in doubt their integrity.
When errors saw hits
Nevertheless, both achieved extraordinary political success. As Pierre Bourdieu’s theory demonstrates, its symbolic effectiveness derives less from the form of discourse and more from the accumulation of political capital the paradox is that they often triumph precisely for violating conventions.
His communication is not polished, but is charged with symbolism, identity and emotion. In the end, which defines the value of a political discourse is its result. If a leader conquers votes and mobilizes faithful foundations, his oratory, we like it or not, has fulfilled its purpose.
And would you, regardless of your ideological position, be able to identify other positive and negative aspects in each other’s communication? Participate in the debate. It is often precisely by hearing what we dislike that we learn most about the art of persuasion. Follow by
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the young Pan.
