Learn from the Brazilians (Opinion)

Last updated: 2022/11/06 at 4:13 PM

On October 30th, for the first time in Brazilian history, an incumbent President lost re-election. In a world where populist rhetoric has met unfettered support, Sunday’s run-off election proved to be revolutionary.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, famously known as Lula to Brazilians, has defeated Jair Bolsonaro by gaining 50.9 per cent of the votes to his 49.1 per cent. While the tight-run election results point to the high level of polarization in the Brazilian political space, a point of concern for the new President-elect, it is a win for liberal democratic values and the kind of peaceful politics the world needs at the moment.

It was only a few days ago that the house of Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, was the target of an intruder motivated by right-wing propaganda. The January 6th Capitol storming, instigated by Donald Trump in an effort to reject the US Presidential election results, and the damage it did to American democratic institutions, is still fresh in memory. In an era of political intolerance and violence, the defeat of Bolsonaro is the vanquishment of far-right extremism.

Populism is dangerous whether of the US, Hungarian, British, Brazilian, Indian, or Pakistani variety. It divides society into two antagonistic groups, the ‘pure people’ versus the ‘corrupt elite’.

The dangers of such anti-establishment rhetoric are far too many; whosoever dares to stand on the opposite end of the political spectrum is othered, side-lined or worse— persecuted. The leader is the focal point, often weaponizing personal charisma and political manoeuvring, deeming himself to be the saviour of the nation.

Populist leaders propagate easy to understand messages and appeal to a strong sense of untapped emotion to channel support. They tend to label themselves as outsiders fighting against the corrupt system. Bolsonaro is one such leader. For months leading up to the election, he built the false narrative that Brazil’s electronic voting system was unreliable, implying that any result other than his victory would be unacceptable.

He tried, although in vain, to buy poor Brazilians’ votes by giving welfare handouts (in August, he boosted welfare payments by 50 per cent). Just before the election, his campaign members tried unsuccessfully to delay the election by falsely alleging that radio stations were not playing Bolsonaro’s campaign advertisements in the northeast. On election day, the federal highway police put up roadblocks and stopped several vehicles for ‘violations’ of traffic rules in an effort to stop Lula-backed areas from voting, a classic case of voter suppression.

Many workers reported being unlawfully pressured by companies to vote for the incumbent.

While Brazilians experienced perhaps the nastiest election campaign in their history, they are content with the result. Lula served in office in 2003 and 2010 before a year and a half stint in prison on corruption charges from 2018-19. While this election may be less about Lula’s popularity and more about choosing the lesser of two evils, still, he serves as a ray of hope for Brazilians.

As a Social Democrat, during his reign, his social programme was an attempt to alleviate poverty, which explains why the poor strata of Brazilian society disproportionately backed Lula during the run-off. He now promises to steer the post-covid economy, combat inflation and protect the environment, particularly the Amazon rainforest, which has seen increased levels of deforestation during Bolsonaro’s rule.

By not being swayed by political handouts, pressure techniques or violence, Brazilian people have ushered in a new era where undemocratic rhetoric is bound to fail, where acceptance and tolerance of rival thought are critical. Brazil may provide an example or two for the Pakistani populace.

While the anti-elite and anti-establishment Imran Khan, a third-way populist, promises to eradicate corruption and the Zardaris and Sharifs from the Land of the Pure, the ranks of his party are filled with people from the parties he so fervently hates. During his reign, news channels and journalists were specifically targeted and silenced for their partisan outlooks.

When removed from office in a vote of no confidence in the legislature, he attributed it to an international regime change conspiracy and propounded anti-establishment rhetoric. It is the demarcation of society into in-groups and out-groups that is highly dangerous, such labels a product of cunning political engineering.

When intolerance enters political discourse, democracy and plurality are greatly threatened. While Khan may have fooled a large part of the young and cosmopolitan Pakistanis into thinking that he is the change that they badly need, many political scientists can identify patterns too familiar.

What Pakistanis need is the level of political consciousness that Brazilians have unlocked. They need to see beyond fancy promises and scapegoats for their problems and stop populism in its tracks. If the Brazilians can do it, so can they.

The writer is a BSc Philosophy, Politics and Economics student at the London School of Economics and Political Science and a published author. She can be reached at: maheenrasul@gmail.com