Some of the country’s main political scientists met, on Thursday night (16), in one of the most awaited debate tables. Entitled “Brazilian democracy in October 2025”, the conference dealt with the country’s political situation, one month after the STF (Supreme Federal Court) condemned former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL) for an attempted coup d’état and two months before the election year.
Argelina Figueiredo (Uerj), Antonio Lavareda (Ipespe), and Silvana Krause (UFRGS) participated in the panel, all under the coordination of . In general, the experts’ assessment points to a scenario of instability in Brazilian democracy, with the growing importance of Congress and the marked ideological difference between the Legislative and Executive branches.
The seminar began with an explanation by UFRGS political science professor Silvana Krause on current party representation. According to her, the scenario is one of increasing fragmentation, which mirrors the instability of Brazilian democracy. According to the professor, this instability can also be seen in European countries, such as Germany and France.
“The root center does not currently have national leadership, its leaders are in regional oligarchies, in a scenario of weakening root and Bolsonarism,” said Krause. In her presentation, she showed how the use of amendments contributes to this volatile situation, eroding the image of parties and Congress in society. “In the new democracy, the majority of the population has no party preference,” said Krause.
Some recent events determine the country’s political moment: Bolsonaro’s sentence to 27 years in prison, which creates a moment of uncertainty in the right-wing camp, including to define the candidate in 2026, and the troubled relationship between Lula (PT) and the National Congress, where the government base has a minority presence.
In her intervention, Uerj political science professor Argelina Figueiredo highlighted the ideological distance between Lula and the majority of congressmen, something that contributes to instability. However, his speech aimed to clarify certain sentences about the relationship between these two Powers. “The imposing budget did not remove the Executive’s power to control the budget, making it a hostage,” she stated.
“Indeed, the government suffered defeats, but it also achieved significant success in some crucial measures for the Executive.” According to Figueiredo, it is also not possible to say that the Lula government no longer operates according to the characteristics of a coalition presidentialism. According to the professor, this is just a moment of greater clash between the Executive and Legislative branches.
In this conflictive context, the STF (Supreme Federal Court) emerged as one of the most decisive institutions for the country’s direction. Professor at FGV’s Law School, Oscar Vilhena reflected, in his explanation, on the erosion of authority faced by the court. The , he said, was not a usurpation of power, as defended by critics, being provided for in the Federal Constitution.
The court, according to Vilhena, exceeds its power of action in the face of the omission of other institutions, such as the Attorney General’s Office, causing distrust among parts of society. “We need to transform the Supreme Court into a constitutional court, without the criminal jurisdiction and resources by which it is responsible for judging,” said Vilhena, adding that such a measure would require an amendment to the Constitution, something difficult to achieve at the moment. Therefore, the professor indicates the need for self-restraint by the STF, through more decisions taken in a collegiate body.
The last to deliver his intervention, Antonio Lavareda, political scientist and sociologist at Ipespe, sought to question the idea that a calcified polarization would impede the plasticity of public opinion in Brazil. “January 8, 2023 was not the result of polarization, the coup plot was not the result of polarization, it was the result of radicalization,” stated Lavareda. According to him, if there was indeed a calcified polarization, this should explain the risks faced by democracy in recent times.
Founded in 1977, Anpocs brings together more than a hundred postgraduate and research centers in different areas of the human sciences. The association’s annual meeting is one of the most traditional events for disseminating academic thought, attracting the attention of researchers, teachers and students, in addition to the 1,200 affiliates of the non-profit entity itself. A, disseminate studies and help experts solve the country’s problems.
This year, the meeting takes place from October 15th to 24th. In addition to the table on the moment of democracy, there is also a conference, scheduled for Friday (17), on the two years of the war in Gaza, bringing together political scientist Paulo Sérgio Pinheiro (USP) and professor of international law Paulo Casella (USP). On the same day, there will be a table on social cohesion, with Leonardo Avritzer (UFMG), Félix Lopes (Ipea), Antônio Brito (Ipea) and Roberto Pires (Ipea).
