Abstract
This case study explores democratic backsliding in Brazil that was accompanied by Jair Bolsonaro’s rise to power and his push for autocratization. Bolsonaro’s presidency was characterized by systematic attacks on democratic institutions, including efforts to undermine the judiciary, the legislature, and electoral integrity. A broad prodemocracy coalition of political parties, state governors, civil society, and the judiciary emerged to resist Bolsonaro’s authoritarian drive. The coalition played a pivotal role in preserving Brazil's democratic framework and preventing further erosion of democratic norms, but structural weaknesses in Brazil’s political system—which include growing affective polarization, ineffective governance, and the creeping influence of organized crime—present significant challenges to sustaining democracy. In the face of these enduring threats, maintaining democratic resilience in Brazil will likely be difficult.
Keywords
In 2011, Brazil’s Varieties of Democracy (V-Dem) liberal democracy score peaked at 0.795, one of the highest in Latin America (Coppedge et al. 2024). A decade later, however, it had dropped to 0.511—a sharp decline (see Figure 1). This erosion gained momentum around 2016, when several destabilizing influences converged: an economic recession, widespread political disillusionment, and a major corruption scandal that implicated high-level political actors across the ideological spectrum. These events triggered a realignment of social and political forces, fracturing the political system and creating an environment ripe for democratic backsliding. At the core of Brazil’s backsliding is the rise of a political leader—Jair Bolsonaro—who, capitalizing on these crises, initially sought to challenge and then systematically dismantle democratic institutions. Elected in 2018, Bolsonaro did not cause Brazil’s democratic crisis but became its most visible symptom, accelerating the erosion of democracy through sustained attacks on the judiciary, legislature, and electoral integrity (Hunter and Power 2019).
Brazil’s Electoral and Liberal Democracy Index, 2000–2024
Bolsonaro’s pathway to democratic backsliding closed off or limited several key arenas of democratic practice. His administration worked to undermine the legislature by bypassing traditional executive-legislative relations, attacking Congress, and mobilizing populist support to weaken its role as a check on executive power. Additionally, he persistently attacked judicial independence, particularly targeting the Supreme Court and electoral courts, which he viewed as obstacles to his authority. His administration also sought to delegitimize the media through disinformation campaigns and outright attacks on journalists that further eroded their ability to hold him accountable. Finally, Bolsonaro’s continuous questioning of the integrity of Brazil’s electronic voting system created distrust in electoral processes, thereby undermining the foundation of democratic competition.
Despite these efforts, several arenas remained open and became sites of democratic resistance. The judiciary, especially the Supreme Court, played a pivotal role in curbing Bolsonaro’s excesses, particularly by defending the electoral system and upholding constitutional checks on executive power. State governors, empowered by Brazil’s federal system, also resisted, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic, by implementing lockdowns and coordinating responses in defiance of Bolsonaro’s policies. Furthermore, civil society mobilization—through political parties, nongovernmental organizations, and media organizations—helped expose government corruption, misinformation, and ineptitude and ultimately succeeded in denying Bolsonaro reelection in 2022.
Bolsonaro’s tenure in office exemplifies one pathway to backsliding—one marked by attempts at executive aggrandizement without the help of a legislative majority or reliance on popular referenda. It was, in essence, an attempted, slow-moving autogolpe (self-coup) that strove to close off checks and balances from the legislature, judiciary, media, and electoral system. This attempt was followed by significant democratic resilience and recovery (Riedl et al. 2024). His presidency exhibited many features of democratic erosion, but his efforts did not lead to the full consolidation of autocratic power. Instead, a broad societal coalition successfully pushed back, ultimately denying Bolsonaro reelection in 2022. This article examines the distinct pathway of democratic backsliding in Brazil and the responses that shaped the country’s political trajectory. The first section delves into the roots of democratic erosion, tracing how a decades-long political equilibrium broke down starting in 2014 and how it set the stage for Jair Bolsonaro’s rise to power in 2018. The second section explores Bolsonaro’s presidency, focusing on his concerted efforts to undermine democratic institutions. The third section explores the formation of a broad resistance coalition—comprising political parties, civil society, state governors, and the judiciary—against Bolsonaro’s authoritarian drive and the strategy they adopted to win the 2022 election. Finally, the conclusion reflects on the structural challenges Brazil faces in sustaining democracy moving forward.
Shattering the Democratic Equilibrium
To fully understand the nature of Brazil’s democratic backsliding under Bolsonaro, it is crucial to revisit the foundations of democratic stability prior to his arrival in office. Following Brazil’s transition from authoritarian rule in the mid-1980s, the country’s democratic experiment was initially hailed as a step toward a more programmatic political system. The distinctive equilibrium that emerged—Brazil’s brand of minority presidentialism—would define the country’s governance for the next three decades, but it came with profound structural weaknesses (Mello and Spektor 2018). Brazil’s electoral system, characterized by majoritarian rules for the executive and proportional representation for the legislature, posed immediate governance challenges. Presidents were forced to govern through broad, ideologically diverse coalitions in Congress, which diluted campaign promises and sustained governance through a combination of pork-barrel politics, the distribution of cabinet posts, and opportunities for corruption within Brazil’s vast developmental state (Bersch et al. 2023; Taylor 2020).
This institutional setup paved the way for entrenched powerbrokers from the old regime to maintain their influence through practices such as vote-buying, clientelism, and patronage. Yet, for all its ills, this model of governance proved remarkably stable. The administrations of Fernando Henrique Cardoso (center-right, 1995–2002) and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (center-left, 2003–2010) illustrated how to operate within this system. Through oversized and ideologically incoherent coalitions, both managed to prevent defections and legislative indiscipline, thereby maintaining political functionality. Governance was secured through the distribution of ministerial posts and lucrative opportunities for corruption via public contracts with business conglomerates. While this kept Brazil politically functional, it did so at the cost of poor-quality public services in exchange for high taxation, leading to widespread disillusionment (Hunter 2010).
This fragile equilibrium began to unravel in the aftermath of the 2008 global financial crisis. Although Brazil initially benefited from the commodity boom of the early 2000s, by 2010, the economy had stalled and the limitations of the country’s development model had become apparent. Lula’s successor, Dilma Rousseff, inherited growing dissatisfaction with the state’s inability to provide adequate public services—particularly in areas like health care, education, and public security—as economic momentum faltered (Mainwaring 2022; Michener et al. 2023).
The breaking point came in 2013, when the widespread protests that erupted across the country exposed the depth of public frustration. By 2014, the massive corruption scandal known as Operation Car Wash (Operação Lava Jato) exposed the scale of systemic corruption at the heart of Brazilian politics. Billions of dollars in government overpayments were being funneled into slush funds controlled by political parties and business elites. The scandal implicated high-ranking officials, including former presidents, and crippled Brazil’s major political parties (Pavão 2018; Taylor 2020).
With the exposure of systemic corruption, Brazil’s political establishment began to collapse (Avritzer 2019; Borges 2021; Limongi 2021; Gonzalez-Ocantos et al. 2023). Public trust in the ruling Workers’ Party (PT) and traditional parties plummeted. Rousseff was impeached, Lula was jailed, and establishment parties were punished at the polls. This breakdown in political order created the opening for Jair Bolsonaro, an antiestablishment candidate, to capitalize on public anger and distrust. Sensing an opportunity, he successfully channeled the electorate’s discontent and secured the presidency in 2018 (Anderson 2019).
The Rise of Bolsonaro’s Backsliding Coalition
Jair Bolsonaro’s political ascent was fueled by an anger-driven, antiestablishment message aimed at dismantling Brazil’s political system as it existed (Amorim Neto and Pimenta 2020; Pereira 2020; Ribeiro and Borges 2020). During the 2018 campaign, he positioned himself as the only candidate willing to implode the entrenched order, adopting rhetoric that contributed to polarization among those on both the Left and moderate Right. To signal his commitment to radical change, Bolsonaro advanced a series of provocative policies designed to sharply contrast with traditional politics. Aiming to shrink the state’s role in the economy, he promised a neoliberal economic agenda focused on deregulation and privatizations. Simultaneously, he vowed to dismantle human rights and environmental protections, positioning himself against Brazil's long-standing international commitments in this area.
Bolsonaro’s platform also included a fierce rejection of political correctness, which manifested in overt attacks on marginalized groups, including the LGBTQ community, indigenous populations, and women. His campaign further thrived on a systematic assault on journalists and the media by leveraging misinformation and conspiracy theories to undermine their role in holding power accountable. Framing the political class as a corrupt caste, he attacked the legislative and judicial branches, with a particular focus on the Supreme Court, which he sought to portray as an obstacle to his ambitions. Central to his rhetoric was a “law and order” platform, which resonated deeply in a country grappling with some of the highest crime rates and firearm-related homicides in the world (Pereira 2014). This tough-on-crime stance galvanized support from security forces, whose impunity he pledged to protect (Hunter and Vega 2022).
Even after winning the 2018 election, Bolsonaro continued to challenge the integrity of Brazil’s electoral system. Despite being declared victorious by the electoral court, he claimed that the electronic voting system was unreliable and suggested that he had received more votes than recorded. His persistent attacks on electoral integrity became a cornerstone of his administration, with calls for a return to a paper ballot system and threats to postpone the 2022 election unless Congress implemented his proposed reforms. This narrative helped Bolsonaro frame his presidency as one of continued resistance against an allegedly corrupt system, thus keeping his antiestablishment momentum alive.
Once in office, Bolsonaro moved swiftly to populate the government with military officers and security forces personnel, drawn heavily from Brazil’s armed forces. His administration included thousands of active-duty and retired officers in key positions, a move that increased the military’s influence in civilian governance. He rewarded the military with increased budgets, higher salaries, and policies that sought to rehabilitate the image of Brazil’s military dictatorship and cast it as a bulwark against communism (Amorim Neto and Accorsi 2022). This militarization of public life was unprecedented, although it also exposed internal divisions within the military and, as the next section will show, complicated Bolsonaro’s efforts to consolidate power fully.
Bolsonaro also bypassed traditional political mechanisms with attempts to directly engage the public. In his weekly social media broadcasts, he spoke directly to his base; this strategy mobilized his supporters to push back against opposition from the legislative branch and thus pressured it to act on his agenda through plebiscitarian appeals to the masses. He introduced legislation to open up protected lands for agricultural use, thus securing the support of the powerful agribusiness sector, particularly in regions heavily dependent on commodity exports. His environmental policies drew international criticism but were seen as a necessary concession to maintain domestic political alliances. Alongside these policies, Bolsonaro attacked universities by slashing funding for research, curbing academic freedom, and accusing educational institutions of promoting leftist ideologies.
To consolidate the support of Brazil’s evangelical denominations—a key constituency in his electoral base—he championed laws exempting churches from taxation, thus further deepening his alliance with religious leaders. Their support proved crucial in bolstering his political standing, as evangelical groups actively mobilized in favor of his administration’s policies, including his stances on family, religion, and traditional values.
Bolsonaro’s foreign policy marked a sharp shift toward the far right, aligning Brazil closely with the Trump administration while moving away from multilateral commitments. A key element was his attempt to decouple Brazil from China in favor of strengthening ties with the U.S. At the United Nations, he denounced “globalism,” aligned himself with far-right figures like Steve Bannon, and framed international institutions as threats to sovereignty. Also, in a retreat from regional engagement, he abandoned Brazil’s traditional leadership in South American diplomacy. His administration faced strong international criticism over its handling of Amazon rainforest wildfires—criticism he dismissed as foreign interference—and continued its backing of agribusiness interests.
Last, when the COVID-19 pandemic struck two years into his mandate, Bolsonaro’s response was driven by two key instincts: a fear that strict health measures would trigger an economic downturn that would jeopardize his reelection prospects in 2022 and a deeply ingrained tendency to challenge the mainstream consensus. Seeing the pandemic as an opportunity to reinforce his antiestablishment stance, Bolsonaro downplayed the severity of the virus, dismissed social distancing measures, delayed vaccine negotiations, and obstructed the crisis management efforts of governors and mayors. His goal was to prioritize economic activity, particularly in a country reliant on informal labor, and to position himself as a defiant leader who rejected the international and scientific consensus. Bolsonaro referred to COVID-19 as a gripezinha (“little flu”) and vetoed mask mandates while promoting unproven treatments like hydroxychloroquine. However, as the pandemic dragged on and the death toll rose, this strategy backfired, exposing his leadership failures and creating space for the opposition to reorganize and mount a stronger challenge to his rule.
Strategies of Resistance
The response to Bolsonaro’s authoritarian inclinations unfolded across four key arenas of democratic contestation: institutional, electoral, civil society, and contentious politics. This section focuses on how institutional actors, from the judiciary to the legislature, became critical pillars of resistance, while civil society organizations and declining approval rates contributed essential momentum. Each arena—whether through formal checks or grassroots mobilization—provided a unique form of resistance that helped curb Bolsonaro’s attempts at executive aggrandizement and ultimately limited the erosion of democratic governance.
Institutional contestation
Bolsonaro’s mishandling of the pandemic triggered a strong institutional response: The judiciary, particularly the Supreme Court, became a prominent force in resisting his overreach (Aguiar Aguilar 2023). As the president sought to centralize decision-making authority over lockdowns and health measures, the Supreme Court blocked his efforts and instead empowered governors and mayors to implement their own public health responses. Furthermore, in April 2021, the court mandated the Senate to establish a committee to investigate the government’s response to the pandemic. This investigation revealed a series of scandals involving bribery and other forms of misconduct that significantly damaged Bolsonaro’s credibility. Additionally, as Bolsonaro continued to undermine the integrity of Brazil’s electronic voting system, the judiciary, particularly the electoral courts, doubled down in upholding electoral integrity. Supreme Court justices gained prominence, oftentimes siding with governors and mobilizing the press as they pushed back against the executive office.
A significant source of resistance to Bolsonaro’s authoritarian ambitions emerged from within the military itself. Bolsonaro brought a large number of generals and military officers into his administration, which contributed to deep politicization of the armed forces and exposed sharp internal divisions. While one faction was willing to support Bolsonaro’s increasingly autocratic tendencies and align itself with his push for expanded executive power, another grew increasingly wary of the risks posed to the military itself. For this cautious faction, the danger lay in the armed forces losing their historically high public approval rating and coming under heightened scrutiny from oversight institutions and Congress. There was also concern that their privileged status as one of Brazil’s most favored interest groups—benefiting from substantial salaries, pensions, and budgets for military hardware, all without the burden of fighting wars—might be jeopardized. These divisions within the military weakened Bolsonaro’s ability to rely on it as a unified force in support of his agenda, complicating his efforts to consolidate power.
The United States played a pivotal role in empowering the faction within Brazil’s military that remained committed to defending democratic principles during Bolsonaro’s potential backsliding. When Bolsonaro echoed former U.S. President Donald Trump by casting doubt on the reliability of Brazil’s electronic voting system, the Biden administration responded decisively. The U.S. embassy in Brasília issued public statements reaffirming the transparency and integrity of Brazilian elections. Additionally, high-level U.S. officials, including CIA Director Bill Burns and National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan, were dispatched to Brasília to personally deliver the message that any interference with the electoral process would result in swift condemnation from the U.S. (Stuenkel 2024). These interventions resonated deeply within Brazil's military ranks, where the prospect of losing vital U.S. military cooperation raised serious concerns. The threat of international isolation, amplified by media speculation and public discourse, prompted key military leaders to distance themselves from any talk of a coup. Even Bolsonaro’s vice president, a retired army general who was fully aware of the risks posed by U.S. diplomatic and military disengagement, began to back away from such discussions.
Electoral contestation
Bolsonaro’s mismanagement of the pandemic not only weakened his standing but also reshaped political coalitions. By mid-2021, as his approval ratings plummeted to between 20 and 25 percent, he found himself increasingly isolated. To fend off growing opposition and impeachment threats, Bolsonaro reverted to traditional Brazilian political tactics: distributing large amounts of pork-barrel funds to Congress members to secure their support. Congress, however, recognized the president’s failure to lead during the crisis and stepped into the leadership void by passing social security measures that supported families affected by the lockdown. This decisive policy action benefited nearly a third of Brazilian households and was a stark contrast to Bolsonaro’s chaotic governance. This period set the stage for a political realignment, with the emergence of a broader coalition to oppose Bolsonaro.
While Bolsonaro did not create polarization in Brazil, his rise to power dramatically accelerated it. The roots of heightened affective polarization—characterized by intense personal disdain between political groups—can be traced back to the rise of the PT in the 1980s and 1990s (Samuels et al. 2024). As the PT consolidated power and implemented ambitious social policies, it sparked strong emotional responses, both in support of and in opposition to the party. These divisions deepened in subsequent decades, particularly during the mass protests of 2013 and the political turmoil surrounding Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment in 2016. By the time Bolsonaro was campaigning in 2018, polarization had already taken hold. However, his confrontational leadership style, inflammatory rhetoric, and open attacks on democratic institutions exacerbated the divisions, leading to unprecedented levels of polarization. Bolsonaro’s antiestablishment message further intensified emotional attachments, with citizens increasingly defined by their support for or opposition to him.
Bolsonaro’s rise to power in 2018 was built on his ability to exploit the long-standing anti-PT (anti-Workers’ Party) sentiment. Much of his initial appeal stemmed from being the most effective embodiment of antipetismo, and it was critical to the formation of his electoral majority. However, once in office, Bolsonaro became a deeply polarizing figure in his own right. While anti-PT polarization had previously united a broad range of political actors, Bolsonaro’s confrontational style and governance alienated several sectors of society critical of the PT, including parts of the center and right. These groups, appalled by his authoritarian tendencies and mismanagement, began to distance themselves from Bolsonaro. Thus, Bolsonaro created a distinct axis of polarization that, while intersecting with anti-PT sentiment, remains separate from it. Today, anti-PT and Bolsonarismo are two different phenomena, even though there is some convergence between them. This division highlights the complexity of Brazil's political polarization, where multiple, intersecting axes of conflict—between pro- and anti-PT and pro- and anti-Bolsonaro—shape the political arena.
Ironically, this polarization played a crucial role in mobilizing a prodemocracy coalition to counter Bolsonaro’s authoritarian ambitions. As his divisive rhetoric alienated key segments in the political arena, it created space for a coalition of political actors, civil society groups, and institutional figures from across ideological lines to coalesce. United by their opposition to Bolsonaro’s disregard for democratic norms, these unlikely allies formed an anti-backsliding movement aimed at preserving Brazil’s democratic institutions. This broad-based resistance ultimately contributed to Bolsonaro’s defeat in 2022. Thus, while polarization corroded social cohesion, it also became a catalyst for democratic resilience, forging alliances in defense of democratic governance.
Civil society
Brazil’s civil society also mobilized in response to Bolsonaro’s policies. Nongovernmental organizations, watchdog organizations, and investigative journalists worked to expose government corruption and incompetence in the handling of the health and environmental crises. The media played a vital role in documenting the administration’s failures, while fact-checkers countered the flood of misinformation and disinformation that Bolsonaro frequently spread through his social media channels. Business and labor groups, too, expressed their discontent, particularly as Bolsonaro’s mismanagement of the pandemic worsened Brazil’s economic and international standing. The government’s emergency aid of BRL 600 per month, which reached 43 percent of Brazilian households, provided temporary relief, but civil society actors were crucial in holding the administration accountable for its broader failures. Their efforts helped build the momentum for a widespread rejection of Bolsonaro’s leadership.
Contentious politics
The mishandling of the pandemic sparked widespread protests and social unrest, with contentious politics emerging as a powerful form of resistance. With COVID-19 cases surging and more than 617,000 deaths recorded by 2022, public outrage intensified. Across the country, protests erupted, fueled by dissatisfaction with Bolsonaro’s leadership and the deepening inequality exacerbated by the pandemic. State governors, many of whom had initially supported Bolsonaro during his 2018 campaign, now turned against him and stepped up to lead the public health response. Governors imposed lockdowns, closed businesses, and banned large gatherings, often in direct defiance of Bolsonaro. And when 26 out of 27 governors met, without Bolsonaro, to coordinate their responses, they became central pillars of resistance. As local authorities took charge of pandemic management in the absence of federal leadership, the different measures they imposed contributed to significant variation in compliance and outcomes across the country. Despite Bolsonaro’s efforts to frame local lockdowns as criminal and call on mayors to reverse restrictions, the pushback from state governors and civil society only strengthened the resistance against him.
Bolsonaro’s pandemic response, intended to consolidate his power, had the opposite effect by instead uniting a broad and diverse coalition against him. A Senate inquiry into the administration’s pandemic response, along with ongoing protests and media scrutiny, helped expose the full extent of the government’s failures. While the pandemic temporarily stabilized in early 2022 and government handouts to poorer families continued, Bolsonaro’s broader mishandling of the crisis weakened his grip on power and rendered him vulnerable in the reelection campaign. The resistance across these four arenas—institutional, electoral, civil society, and contentious politics—proved instrumental in limiting the extent of democratic backsliding in Brazil and ultimately denying Bolsonaro a second term in office.
The 2022 Brazilian presidential election was a fierce contest between Jair Bolsonaro and Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva—candidates who represented two starkly different visions for the country. Lula built a broad coalition that united political actors across the ideological spectrum in what was effectively a big-tent approach. This strategy allowed him to draw support from various factions, from the center-right to the far-left, all aligned in their opposition to Bolsonaro’s autocratic tendencies. Lula won the election narrowly in the second round, with a margin of less than 2 percent, securing 50.9 percent of the vote to Bolsonaro’s 49.1 percent. This razor-thin victory highlighted the deeply polarized nature of Brazilian society. Moreover, Lula’s coalition was inherently fragile, held together by a shared opposition rather than cohesive policy objectives. In other words, Lula’s win raised questions about the long-term stability of his support base.
In contrast, Bolsonaro doubled down on his populist, antiestablishment rhetoric, portraying himself as the true defender of Brazil against a corrupt political elite. Although he ultimately lost the election, his ability to retain the support of a substantial portion of the electorate and his party’s win in governorships and a large share of the legislature demonstrated the enduring appeal of his message. Bolsonaro emerged from the race as the most prominent figure on the right, solidifying his position as the leader of the opposition. His charismatic leadership and polarizing style ensured that, despite the loss, he remains a powerful political force.
In the aftermath of his defeat, Bolsonaro’s rhetoric escalated, culminating in the January 8, 2023, coup attempt. Inspired by his unfounded claims of electoral fraud, supporters stormed Brazil’s key government institutions, including Congress, the Supreme Court, and the presidential palace. The attack bore striking similarities to the January 6 insurrection in the U.S. and underscored the extent of Bolsonaro’s influence over his base. Although the coup attempt failed, the deep mark it left on Brazilian politics exposed the fragility of the democratic order.
Adding to Bolsonaro’s legal troubles, a series of scandals emerged in 2023, revealing that he had sold valuable gifts he received during his presidency for personal financial gain. The scandal further damaged his public image and added to the mounting legal challenges he faced. By mid-2023, Brazil’s Supreme Court barred Bolsonaro from running for office in 2026, citing his role in the coup attempt and ongoing investigations into corruption. Despite these setbacks, Bolsonaro remains a central figure within the Brazilian right. As of writing, he continues to exert significant influence over conservative politics, acting as a kingmaker within his political camp.
Implications and Policy Conclusions
Brazil’s experience under Bolsonaro illustrates both the vulnerabilities and the strengths of democratic systems under stress. Bolsonaro’s pursuit of executive aggrandizement—mobilizing his base against the judiciary, legislature, and media—follows a well-known trajectory of democratic backsliding. However, his strategy stood apart due to the absence of a legislative majority or plebiscitary referenda to entrench his power formally. Instead, Bolsonaro relied on informal mechanisms, such as social media mobilization and public discrediting of institutional actors, which may have limited his capacity to consolidate power fully. This informal approach enabled democratic resistance to remain organized and resilient. State governors, the Supreme Court, and a broad coalition of political parties, civil society organizations, and media outlets played critical roles in safeguarding Brazil's democratic institutions and ensuring they continued to function even in a deeply polarized environment.
This case highlights the distinctiveness of Brazil’s democratic backsliding, where institutional capture was attempted but ultimately resisted. Unlike other examples of democratic erosion globally, Bolsonaro’s approach did not involve the formal restructuring of institutions or legislative control. Instead, his overreach was largely informal and driven by plebiscitary tactics—direct appeals to his base that bypassed institutional norms. While these tactics did significant damage to public trust in democratic institutions, they also exposed vulnerabilities in the executive’s ability to entrench power when institutional and civil resistance is strong.
At the same time, Brazil’s democratic resilience underscores the importance of institutional checks and balances. The judiciary’s proactive defense of constitutional norms, the federal system’s empowerment of state governors, and the mobilization of civil society were decisive in preserving the integrity of democratic processes. These factors highlight the critical role that institutional autonomy and an active public sphere can play in resisting democratic erosion, even in highly polarized contexts.
Nevertheless, the resilience demonstrated in resisting Bolsonaro’s backsliding should not obscure the deeper, unresolved structural weaknesses that continue to undermine Brazilian democracy. Persistent socioeconomic inequality, ineffective governance, and the state’s inability to deliver basic public goods—particularly in areas such as education, health care, and citizen security—have eroded public confidence and left space for non-state actors to fill governance gaps. Among these actors, organized crime has become an increasingly prominent force, gaining influence over local politics and challenging state authority (Lessing 2021). While this article has focused primarily on the dynamics of Bolsonaro’s presidency and the resistance it provoked, the growing influence of criminal organizations represents a pressing threat to Brazil’s democratic integrity (Adorno 2013). The entrenchment of organized crime, alongside other structural challenges, could further complicate efforts to strengthen democracy in the long term. Scholars and policymakers must prioritize these intertwined issues, as addressing them will be essential to sustaining Brazil’s democratic stability and preventing future episodes of democratic erosion.
Footnotes
Matias Spektor is a professor of politics and international relations at the School of International Relations at Fundação Getulio Vargas (FGV), where he specializes in political violence, climate politics, and international security. He is affiliated with the Reimagining World Order project at Princeton University and the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.