It was only when the 1988 Constitution turned 30 that we returned to debating whether democracy was at risk. In 2018, one of the candidates, after a 30-year parliamentary career, was known for defending the dictatorship and torturers, paying tribute to militiamen. Also for his hatred of dissent and obsession with homosexuality.
In 2018, the debate was influenced by prophets of zero-risk democracy. Politics professor anticipated: “Brazilian democracy is at zero risk. Democratic institutions in Brazil are very solid. Democracy is firmer than ever.”
Another commentator said: “Warning of risk to democracy is exaggerated and still helps Bolsonaro. Bolsonaro’s virulent rhetoric tends to be just that: rhetoric.” “Gradually it is being ‘domesticated’, and does not pose any risk to democracy. Democracy is a great machine that moderates positions.”
In 2020, the professor gave himself the right to joke: “Ih… Brazilian democracy has not collapsed… The chances of erosion of Brazilian democracy are almost zero.” In August 2022, he revamped the irony: “Bolsonaro was unable to carry out a coup while he is president. Concerns now turn to whether he would be able to do so when he leaves the Presidency.”
And he used the then former American president to prophesy: ”he refused to recognize his defeat under the allegation of fraud. Despite this serious aggression, American democracy did not break. It is whoever is governing. These are the facts that will go down in history, both in the USA and in Brazil”.
The story continued. Those statements aged with the smell of a blunder, of a pure kick made with the badge of political science. An epistemic smuggling of that science that tends to have more modesty in electoral futurology.
the perception of risk gained more credibility and led many people, even frustrated with the options in the election, to embrace democratic freedom as the primary value of choice. There was something non-negotiable that transcended personal preferences.
In the 2026 elections, for the third time, we know that the question will once again permeate the public debate.
Next to Flávio he looks like a plush. He never promised to send opponents “to the end of the beach” or never said “whoever looks for bones is a dog”, “I don’t rape you because you’re ugly”, “he created a mood”. He never slept with military men. He never attempted a coup, he was never arrested. His curriculum vitae echoes the words rachadinha and chocolate, militia and mansion. Cases shelved by the STF.
It would be good if the debate, this time, were held with a little more caution and rigor. With more transparency about uncertainty. With more method to define “democracy” and “risk”. With the benefit of recent Brazilian and global history.
The wind of autocratization remains strong in the world. It marks not just a moment, but a historic era. It would be good to investigate which candidates feed on him, meet with him, and threaten national interests in his name.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
