Before the presidential elections in Brazil, President Jair Bolsonaro built his own version of the "big lie", in the style of the former president of the United States, Donald Trump: that he would lose the election due to fraud. Presidents who employ such tactics may choose not to recognize election results even after a peaceful handover of power. At worst, they can incite their followers to violence.
It is not unusual that Bolsonaro, also known as the "Trump of the tropical belt", uses Trump's tactics. Trump has shown that even after defeat at the polls, it is possible to survive as a powerful - even dominant - political figure in the country. However, accepting election results is one of the basic elements of democracy. If the denial of the electoral will is becoming the new global trend, we have to ask why so many voters stand with leaders who baselessly complain that they have been "deceived".
Bolsonaro's opponent is Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (better known as Lula), a former leftist president who is still very popular, as shown by his large and continuous advantage in election polls. It is possible that the difference between the candidates will decrease, but it is certainly expected that Bolsonaro's radical right-wing option will be defeated. That's why Bolsonaro prepared his supporters not to agree to that outcome.
Most dangerously, Bolsonaro is fueling doubts about the electronic voting system that has been in use in Brazil since 2000 and has been rated as reliable and effective. After the riot in Washington on January 6, 2021, he warned: "If we don't have printed ballots and the ability to verify votes in 2022, we will have bigger problems than those in America." His son and politician Eduardo Bolsonaro commented approvingly on the rebellion in the Capitol, arguing that the coup would have succeeded if the participants had been better organized and armed.
In fact, the losing populists most often claim that it is a fraud. Their main political asset is the claim that they and only they represent the "ordinary people" (or the "silent majority"). It follows from this that all other pretenders to power are corrupt, as well as that voters who do not support populist leaders do not belong to the people, so their votes are illegitimate. Populism cannot be reduced to criticism of elites (which is often justified). It is basically a fundamentally anti-pluralist position: populists pretend to speak with the singularly authoritative voice of a homogenous people of their own making.
According to this logic, if populists are the only authentic representatives of the people, their defeat in the elections can only mean that someone ("liberal elites") found a way ("manipulation of votes") to thwart the will of the supposed majority. For example, after his party unexpectedly lost the 2020 elections, Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán claimed that "the homeland cannot be in opposition." After an unsuccessful bid for the presidency in Mexico in 2006, the current president, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, announced that "the victory of the right is morally impossible." Having brought "the people" (that is, his voters) into the streets of Mexico City, he declared himself the "legitimate president of Mexico."
It's important to remember that populist rhetoric is collapsing the country's democratic political culture even if the election doesn't end in an uprising in the style of the January XNUMX attack on the Capitol. Populist politicians indoctrinate supporters so that they never trust the system and always first assume that the election results are being manipulated behind the scenes by various elites.
This does not mean that electoral laws and processes are perfect and without flaws. In the United States, everything can be criticized, from the regulations governing campaign finance to the practical difficulties faced by citizens trying to vote (many of these difficulties are the result of laws passed precisely to make it difficult to participate in elections). But there is a big difference between criticizing the undemocratic features of the system and dismissing the entire process as undemocratic just because you lost an election. Reasoned criticism strengthens democracy, while calling the electoral process a fraud undermines it.
Denial of election results is especially likely if the electoral body is polarized, as this opens up space for political entrepreneurs such as Trump and Bolsonaro (neither of them tie their fate to political parties). Bolsonaro moved from one party to another, and during the two years of his mandate, he did not belong to any party. Trump dominates the Republican Party, but has never been loyal to it (he used to be a Democrat). Both have gained a large number of loyal followers using social networks and thus freed themselves from the need for the support of the party apparatus that used to be a prerequisite for serious political mobilization.
In the absence of functional parties, neither has anyone in their own political bloc to restrain them; also, neither of them have any philosophy of state leadership or a consistent political program. Both, in fact, are waging personal culture wars without end; if they had a political program they cared about, they might be willing to step down and hand over the leadership to a rival from within their own ranks who has a better chance of winning the next election and implementing the program.
Such figures can be expected to go all or nothing and persistently deny defeat even though they know full well that they have lost. Much more serious consequences are produced by the reactions of their environment. Trump has managed to turn acceptance of the Big Lie into a litmus test for belonging to the Republican Party. Hence, many of the Republican candidates for high offices refuse to declare whether they are ready to accept an electoral defeat in November. Bolsonarianism is a minority position in Brazil, but its protagonist is trying to win over the army, and already enjoys widespread support among members of the police.
What populists call the "silent majority" is actually a vocal minority, as in the case of Trump and Bolsonaro's supporters. And although minorities have every right to have their voices heard, the real majority has no right to remain silent in the face of a minority that becomes anti-democratic and violent.
(Project Syndicate; Peščanik.net; translation: Đ. Tomić)
Bonus video:
