Attack on democracy and individual decisions – 02/18/2024 – Marcus Melo

I have already discussed in the column the risks to democracy in Brazil. I argued that many analysts exaggerated them here. There is a revisionist wave that brings evidence that these risks are smaller than previously thought. Steve Levitsky, author of “How Democracies Die”, acknowledged that “democratic erosion in the present century has been modest”, and that the exaggeration was due to the election of leaders with autocratic tendencies, which in fact “increases the risks of democratic erosion , but does not equate to evidence of erosion”. And it concludes, as I discussed here, that the vast majority of cases of erosion are short-lived and eclipse the numerous cases of advances.

The information brought to light by the investigation reinforces these conclusions. Brazilian democracy is not dead. The reasons for its survival are institutional, social and strategic in nature. A hyperminority president was dominated by an autonomous Legislature and independent Judiciary; not by individuals. And of course, a reasonably professionalized Armed Forces in a framework where there are no credible geopolitical risks associated with the Cold War, as in the past. Added to this is a complex civil society and business and political elites who are mostly opposed to the fracture of the political order.

The investigation illuminates the role of individual actors and is crucial for criminal accountability. But they do not add new institutional information, but rather details; It is therefore of little value for analyzing the survival of democracy. Decisions made by an actor acquire meaning depending on the context.

For example, in a poor country with no democratic tradition, weak civil society, and weak institutions, they have an entirely different meaning where these parameters are different. And the strategic calculation of the actors is conditional on these parameters.

Whether an individual’s non-compliance with a conspiracy is due to the risk involved; its low probability of success and, therefore, fear of future punishment; or to normative preferences for democracy; the non-event (death of democracy) is the result that matters. What’s more: failure to complete the adventure is no guarantee that it would have been successful.

Yes, individuals matter. Kurt Weyland argues that populist leaders are inept, which has consequences on several levels: they are unable to assemble and manage coalitions; they are more likely to adhere to deficient or crazy public policy proposals; they are more risk averse: they will act, but will be restrained; they are incapable of governing, producing chronic instability. All of this is present in Bolsonaro’s outrageous decisions and rhetoric during the pandemic; its inability to forge coalitions; the clumsy attack on electronic voting in a country where there is a strong consensus on the same, etc.

LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access five free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.