Consistent with my expectation, dissatisfaction with voters, in Brazil, rose 5 percentage points from one year here (from 54% to 59% in the new survey). From 2023 to 2024, dissatisfaction had decreased. We are below US (62%), France (66%), Spain (69%) and Italy (67%) and above Germany (39%) and Sweden (25%). Evidence confirms the importance of the winners x losers (the electorate that supports the incumbent improves his assessment, and vice versa). Data for Brazil is not available, but by 2024 the hiatus was 25%.
In the US, satisfaction with democracy increased between after the election of and collapsed between Democrats. In Germany, she improved after CDU/CSU won the elections in February 2025. The same happened between voters, who came to power after 14 years. And in South Africa also with the most satisfied opposition after the ANC loses the majority of Parliament for the first time.
On the other hand, when a fall in general support is observed – Casas da Poland and South Korea -, the increase in dissatisfaction is a predictor of defeat for the incumbent. PIS elected the president in Poland and the South Korean president suffered impeachment.
There is also a winning gap in perception by the elected representatives (not public opinion) about the functioning of democracy, as a survey of 2,445 deputies and senators from 17 Latin American countries published in. In it the main negative factor in the evaluation of democracy for the losers (those who declared not supporting the government, regardless of party) are the legislative powers of the presidents. Among the winners, the lament is in relation to legislative fragmentation. In Brazil, 27%are independent, according to Quaest; 9% do not know how to answer!.
The authors conclude that constitutionally strong presidents cause dissatisfaction with democracy for independent and opposition. It seems mantra of e. The reverse is true: coalition partners complain of weak presidents. , they concluded that satisfaction with democracy is greater when a president has medium powers, neither strong nor weak.
Our situation is unusual because, to use jargon. Hyperminorial presidentialism produces false winners: Presidents without parliamentary support. It wins, but it doesn’t take everything. And also false losers: the loss is never total. The public agenda is dominated by general support items. But the permanent risk here is inaction or paralysis. The executive almost never works unilaterally imposing his agenda.
Part of public opinion gave “thank God” for the fact that under the executive it was weak and vulnerable. Just as they celebrate them the president’s weakness under Lula 3.
Empirical democratic theory maintains that this alternation generates collective learning and moderation.
I suspect we are “not Bayesians”:. Beliefs remain and even recruit.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
