Relative Democracy – 07/07/2023 – Demétrio Magnoli

Venezuela’s “relative democracy” is an absolute dictatorship that, like so many others, promotes periodic farcical elections. María Corina Machado, an opposition candidate in next year’s presidential elections, has just been disqualified by a Comptrollership under Maduro’s control. In Brazil, on the other hand, Bolsonaro has been declared ineligible by an electoral court that follows the law. It’s nothing new: the same law made Lula ineligible in 2018. A political system that disqualifies the two main popular leaders needs to be characterized as a “relative democracy”.

Would Lula have committed crimes of corruption? Should Bolsonaro be sentenced for coup? In a full democracy, the answers –and the penalties– are the responsibility of criminal justice, not electoral justice. In it, laws such as the Clean Sheet would be annulled for violating a fundamental principle: popular sovereignty. It is up to the voters, not the judges, to choose the representatives of the people. Lula’s ineligibility, before, and Bolsonaro’s, now, implies the impeachment of the rights of their voters – who, together, form the majority of the electorate.

The uniformed Bolsonarist crowd celebrated the judicial veto of Lula’s candidacy. The cheering crowd in Lula’s uniform celebrates the veto of Bolsonaro’s candidacy. But it’s not just them: intellectuals, lawyers and journalists naturalize the judicial protection of the electorate, shaping a public opinion that has lost the habit of reflecting on principles. The extent of judicial interference in political representation that characterizes Brazil is unparalleled among established democracies.

Do you despise Bolsonaro? I still harbor the (naive) hope that the criminal justice system will apply the law against him. However, something between a quarter and a third of Brazilians (who, like you and me, pay taxes) want to suffocate the most nefarious character on the national political scene. Disabling him may be a more effective shortcut than defeating him at the polls. But the price of this “victory” is too high.

The Lula and Bolsonaro cases form the emerged peak of an underwater mountain. José Dirceu and José Genoino, two PT leaders of undeniable electoral appeal, were never able to return to Congress. Deltan Dallagnol, the most voted deputy in Paraná, had his mandate revoked by the TSE. Sergio Moro, elected senator with nearly two million votes, appears to be next in line. I wouldn’t vote for any of the four, but that’s beside the point. The right question: how are voters of disqualified or impeached politicians?

Dictatorships often prove to be more efficient than democracies in decision-making. The insurmountable advantage of the democratic system lies elsewhere: preventing power struggles from degenerating into violence. To fulfill this role, democracy needs to offer all political currents a fair competitive opportunity, involving all citizens in electoral processes. This is not what happens when judges are given the prerogative to configure the list of candidates.

“Democracy is a farce” – this is the ritual claim of authoritarian parties and leaders. The notion that the “System” (a hidden power, a “deep state”) manipulates elections infiltrated Lula’s electorate in 2018, as it will spread among Bolsonaro voters in 2026. “My vote doesn’t count” – the systematic interference of judges in popular representation spreads this legend so dear to the enemies of democracy.

In 1920, socialist leader Eugene Debs ran for the US presidency from a prison cell, a right Lula was denied. In consolidated democracies, criminally convicted politicians can still run for election. In Brazil, we disqualify or impeach politicians without criminal conviction, transferring the punishment they deserve to their voters. “Relative democracy” is here.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.