The abuse of power is contraindicative considering per capita income, the long democratic experience and the historical independence of the judiciary in the US. Recently that the failure of the defense of democracy under Trump is fundamentally due to the fact that the US did not experience the experience of.
The absence of authoritarianism in the past would thus explain inaction – the great capitulation – in the present. And extended his analysis to Brazil: here it made it vigilant society.
“Unlike Brazil and Argentina (…) American society has no collective memory of authoritarianism. We have never lost democracy. Most Americans do not understand the threat we are facing now, they still think that the US cannot become authoritarian at all. Brazilians do not have this illusion. This can explain why the political power has faced the authoritarian threat more seriously.”
But the key question Levitsky does not answer is why other countries with authoritarian past – Venezuela, Hungary, Turkey – have not been able to consider factors that allow collective memory to become effective action. There are three potentially explanatory factors for in the US in the literature: presidential popularity, the muscles of civil society, and the strength of brakes and counterweights. However, the first two do not explain the Brazil/US contrast. Trump never had a La popularity or, never exceeded 50% and yet it was more popular than Bolsonaro in 2022.
Levitsky maintains that the robustness of American civil society and its organizational capacity is very high. But if it is superior to the Brazilian, it could not explain the contrast. We would be observing greater resistance. She does not become, as we have seen, according to Levitsky, in effective action due to the beliefs that there is no threat. But this argument is not sustained.
The independence and historical autonomy of the judiciary is greater under Trump, but Republicans hold mostly in court. Which would explain the inaction. In Brazil, although smaller, the opposite occurs: most of the court opposed the president politically.
The key variable is that with a majority in the legislature. The lack of cohesive support from a parliamentary base in the Brazilian case explains success. Bolsonaro was a hyperminority and found a veto point in the center; She explains why the legislature failed: Trump survived. The first, in 2019, the House approved, where the Democrats had a majority (233 chairs against rivals) but the Senate knocked down (53 against 47, a quorum of 67%). Idem in the second: most Democrat (222 vs 211) did not vote; In the Parity Senate, he did not reach quorum, despite 7 Republicans to vote yes.
The conclusion that democracy cannot defend themselves whether politicians and civil society do not see a threat is banal, because very wide. But stating that “so even the most consolidated democracies may die” seems exaggerated. It is still early to avoid anything.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
