Impunity has been the rule for those who conspire against order in Brazil. Throughout the Republic, more than a dozen blows, insurgencies and intentions have been unpunished. Even the perpetrators of crimes against humanity were, in the end, amnesty.
The condemnation of thus represents an important step in the interruption of this legacy of impunity, which has served as an incentive for successive ruptures of the basic rules of the democratic game. If Parliament does not force an amnesty, the cost for a new blow will have become higher in Brazil.
The decision of the assumes also importance that transcends the boundaries of national policy. The liability of the former president and the high-ranking military personnel who watched him in the endeavor represents a breath to other democratic regimes under severe attack by populist leaders and authoritarian movements.
The theme of the institutional defense of democracy is not new. Under the impact of totalitarian experience, postwar Germany has erected a constitutional model of “defensive democracy”, composed of various tools, such as stone clauses, prohibition of undemocratic political parties or restriction on hate speeches. “Defensive democracy” also provides for the use of criminal law for protection against “enemies” of the Constitution.
The 1988, reactive to our injured political trajectory, also adopted a model of “defensive democracy”, with mechanisms that were indispensable to survive this populist cycle. It is important to highlight, however, that if Brazil has resisted authoritarian attacks, it is largely due to those who inhabit the institutions, as well as sectors of society and the press, that they did not underestimate the severity of threats and adopted a defensive stance, even mobilizing criminal and electoral law to protect elections and to punish those who threatened the rules of the game.
Criminal law fulfills an essential role in facing cases with violence or serious threat, but should not be seen as panacea, and there should be educational and political strategies “capable of isolating the far -right parties without ignoring their agendas, which does not mean reproducing their speeches or approaching problems in the same way” (CAS MUDDE, the extreme right today, 2022).
In this sense, although the condemnation of Bolsonaro and his most radical supporters was an important step in excluding from the political game unfair actors to the Constitution, the survival of democracy depends on more than that.
The challenge placed at the head of the actors loyal to the democratic game at this time is to rebuild a consensus on rules of basic political coexistence; respect between the powers; political competition based on respect for legality; of the peaceful solution of conflicts; as well as the need to form governments capable of responding to the interests and needs of the whole society.
Without governments being able to contribute to economic and social development, promote citizens’ safety, efficiently employ the public budget and implement quality public policies that contribute to the well-being of the population, reinforcing confidence in institutions, democracy will remain vulnerable to parasitic attacks, which are nourished from it to destroy it.
