By Beatriz Bissio*
Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
5 October, 2026
Democracy in Brazil is facing its greatest test since the restoration of constitutional order in the mid-1980s and the adoption of the new Constitution in 1988.
In this general election—for the presidency, Congress, governors, and state legislatures—Brazil is divided between two candidates who differed profoundly from one another: on one hand, that of President Lula, who is seeking reelection—in what would be his fourth, non-consecutive term—on a platform of defending sovereignty, democracy, the state as a driver of social justice and an active diplomatic policy that includes its participation in the BRICS; and on the other, the candidacy of Flávio Bolsonaro, the eldest son of former President Bolsonaro, who cannot run because he is in prison and has been stripped of his political rights.
Flavio Bolsonaro’s candidacy embodies extreme neoliberalism, characterized by the erosion of social welfare programs and subservience to U.S. interests—specifically Donald Trump’s agenda, the strategic alliance with Israel, and antagonism toward vital Chinese investment. This economic platform is coupled with fierce individualism, a devotion—genuine or opportunistic—to neo-Pentecostal social conservatism. Beyond that lies a trail of scandals: ongoing corruption investigations, public statements advocating the handover of critical minerals to the U.S., and photographic evidence linking him to the centerpiece of a Brazilian equivalent to the Epstein case. Most alarming, however, are his acknowledged connections to hitmen and local paramilitary groups.
(known as “milicianos”).
The election will be decided in a second round on 25 October. In the first round, Flávio Bolsonaro came out on top with 47.03 per cent of the vote, whilst Lula came second with 45.16 per cent. The result is seen as a consequence not only of domestic issues, but also of the rise of the far right worldwide. In Brazil’s case, this phenomenon first became clearly evident with the victory, in 2018, of the current candidate’s father, Jair Bolsonaro. And the advance of far-right forces in the country is now made explicit by the support received by the candidate Flávio Bolsonaro. Indeed, according to allegations made even by former CIA members – which are currently being investigated by the Federal Police – this advance is reportedly being fuelled by strong support from abroad. This support takes the form of vast sums of money, as well as intelligence from the US and Israeli intelligence services, including the results of behavioural research and sophisticated technical means, constituting various forms of foreign interference, as occurred in recent elections in Chile, Bolivia, Ecuador, Peru and Colombia… All of this demonstrates that President Lula is facing, in this campaign, an opposition that is much better organised both nationally and internationally, and is therefore more dangerous than that of 2022.
The final outcome of the election in Brazil will have reverberations throughout Latin America, particularly in South America, given Brazil’s demographic, economic and political weight. We need only recall that, following the dictatorship established in Brazil in 1964, a ‘domino effect’ began, leading to the establishment of authoritarian regimes (and torture schools) in Chile, Uruguay, Argentina, Peru… Brazil is today surrounded by far-right governments, with the sole exception of Uruguay. If a far-right government subservient to US interests takes power in the country, the United States, via the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ (the Monroe Doctrine, with the Trump corollary), will have secured control of this region, which it regards as its ‘backyard’. And the restoration of sovereignty and democracy in South America could take decades. A Brazilian political analyst has published an article that also serves as a wake-up call regarding this fact, pointing out that a victory for the far right in the second round of the Brazilian elections could be the last opportunity for all Brazilians alive today to exercise their right to vote… It is no coincidence that President Lula has received warm declarations of support from various social and political sectors across Latin America. The importance of Brazil’s resistance to the complete domination of the region by the far right and by Washington is readily understood beyond its borders.
In this context, two factors need to be analysed: the high abstention rate, at just over 20 per cent of the electorate – that is, 33 million voters! – and the drop in the number of votes received by President Lula in Sunday’s ballot: 4 million fewer votes than in the 2022 election, whilst candidate Flávio Bolsonaro’s lead over President Lula was just two million votes.
These two factors highlight a sense of discontent among a section of the electorate over the high cost of living and the levels of violence (which the mainstream press takes it upon itself to highlight time and again). These are real problems faced in their day-to-day lives, particularly by the poorest workers, the unemployed and those who earn a living through ride-hailing apps. With regard to violence, Flávio Bolsonaro’s most direct and even brutal message (the popular phrase being ‘a good criminal is a dead criminal’) may sound more convincing, even though during Jair Bolsonaro’s four years in office there were no improvements in this area; on the contrary, police lethality increased. As for the cost of living, the far right places the blame on President Lula, who has rightly emphasised the many public policies that his government managed to implement, even whilst facing a hostile Congress. And without them, workers’ lives would indeed be much worse.
The fact is that, in order to overcome this sense of unease and disappointment with democracy, it would be necessary to offer solutions to this bitter daily reality. And to do that, how to avoid conducting a rather sophisticated analysis, highlighting the perverse nature of a system of exploitation, the most visible manifestation of which is economic neoliberalism?
None of this is easy to explain in an election campaign. It is even worse in campaigns where social media spreads fake and biased news, and the mainstream media plays into the hands of neoliberalism, glorifying fiscal austerity and wage cuts whilst condemning any investment in support of the most vulnerable and in high-quality public services (education, healthcare, transport).
It is therefore necessary, with a middle- and long-term perspective in mind, to define ongoing tasks in the area of political education – something which, regrettably, the left in these latitudes abandoned a long time ago. And to combine these tasks with an appropriate communications strategy that takes into account the country’s continental characteristics, as well as its regional, educational, cultural and generational diversity. This task may well require the organisation of a ‘task force’ to begin studying the issue immediately, assessing the realistic possibilities for implementing measures and putting forward proposals.
In the short and medium term, it is also necessary to confront the core message of certain neo-Pentecostal churches, the ‘Prosperity Theology’ churches – key players in the far-right campaign. In their messages, these churches distort the interpretation of everyday difficulties: they advocate seeking individualistic solutions and personal fulfilment (in material terms, of course), whilst neglecting to address society or political practices aimed at the common good. Their message spreads rapidly amongst a population that lacks access to quality education and is unable to develop critical thinking skills. Yet it is misleading to teach that success (of the very few) is the result of individual effort, just as failure (of the many) is, a situation which is leading to an exponential rise in mental health problems and even suicide, whilst at the same time encouraging people to turn their backs on politics, which is portrayed as essentially ‘corrupt’ and evil. What is presented as ‘failure’ is, in fact, the result of an oppressive system with both domestic and international manifestations, and of a lack of support and political will to implement measures that would necessarily run counter to that system.
But these issues require a more in-depth and wide-ranging analysis. Brazil now faces a challenge: a three-week campaign to try to defeat the far right, which has already secured control of Congress and most of the states in the federation in the first round. And because it holds this control, it will do everything in its power not only to prevent Lula’s victory in the second round, but – should it be defeated – to use this majority to leave the President with little room to pass measures opposed to its agenda. Even so, the challenge at this moment is to fight to retain the presidency, without ignoring the difficulties that lie ahead.
So we need to roll up our sleeves, take to the streets, and talk to voters who abstained from voting and to those dissatisfied with what democracy has offered them. We need to engage intelligently on social media, and always, always, appeal to emotion, as many experts believe this is what determines the voter’s choice. To this end, we must speak with the utmost clarity about what a victory for Flávio Bolsonaro would mean! There is much to explain to the public on this issue, which was not adequately addressed during the first-round campaign. The majority of the Brazilian population has no realistic idea of the suffering that awaits them if the far right wins the election! Because the vote for Flávio Bolsonaro was, to a large extent, not an ideological vote, but a vote driven by discontent and protest, often fuelled by falsehoods spread via social media platforms controlled by big tech, which found fertile ground in a reality that falls short of the legitimate expectations of many ordinary citizens.
Over these three weeks, we must make voters – particularly the younger ones – aware of the price Brazil paid for 21 years of dictatorship. The struggle to restore democracy involved personal sacrifice, torture, bloodshed and exile for thousands of Brazilians. Is the democracy we have not the one we would wish for? In that case, we must remember President Lula’s message in his final campaign interview: democracy is something we all build together; we must take part in political life – young people, those not so young, and the elderly! Only then will we also have the right to criticise!
* Beatriz Bissio
Programa de Pós-Graduação em História Comparada / Postgraduate Program in Comparative History
Núcleo Interdisciplinar de Estudos sobre África, Ásia e as Relações Sul-Sul – NIEAAS
Centre for Interdisciplinary Studies on Africa, Asia and South-South Relations – NIEAAS –
Universidade Federal do Rio de Janeiro / Federal University of Rio de Janeiro
We remind our readers that publication of articles on our site does not mean that we agree with what is written. Our policy is to publish anything which we consider of interest, so as to assist our readers in forming their opinions. Sometimes we even publish articles with which we totally disagree, since we believe it is important for our readers to be informed on as wide a spectrum of views as possible.