Steven Levitsky, author of ‘How Democracies Die’, sees the Brazilian democratic regime at risk and an ‘unpacified’ Brazil even after the presidential race: ‘Even God will have problems governing Brazil in the future’.

Steven Levitsky has been following the news in Brazil for several years, and comparisons to what he has experienced in America in recent years seem inevitable. Levitsky is a professor of Latin American Studies at Harvard University in the United States, author and co-author of several books, including bestsellers. how democracies die (Zahar, 2018) with Daniel Ziblatt.

In the book, they warn of how democracies around the world have been undermined by authoritarian leaders.

• The main dates of the 2022 elections

On the eve of the Brazilian election, Levitsky warns that President Jair Bolsonaro (PL) copied the tactics of former US President Donald Trump when questioning the legitimacy of the Brazilian electoral system. According to him, Bolsonaro is doing this because he may lose the elections and is trying to find a reason to reverse or even cancel the election results.

“It’s a lie, only to create some kind of legitimacy for some unconstitutional, illegal, or even violent effort to discredit or de-legitimate elections that it might lose, and to reverse or even cancel the outcome of the elections,” Levitsky said. BBC News Brazil.

The interview was held on Friday (July 15th), ahead of Bolsonaro’s meeting with diplomatic representatives from nearly 40 countries. At the meeting on Monday (July 18th), the president once again questioned the security of the electoral system and attacked the Federal Supreme Court (STF) ministers.

In the interview, Levitsky stated that Brazilian democracy is not dead, it is at risk. According to him, this risk will be even greater under an eventual second Bolsonaro. “A second term for Bolsonaro would be very dangerous for Brazil’s democratic institutions. It would give him more control over the courts and other institutions,” he said.

Asked about the possibility of former president Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva (PT) to be the winner of the dispute, Levitsky said he evaluated this result positively, but said that the expectation is that Lula will face strong opposition in the country. Brazil should not be ‘pacified’ after the elections.

“Whatever happens, things will remain unstable and polarized, especially if it’s a close election. Even God will have problems governing Brazil during the next presidency,” he said.

BBC News Brazil – You described the moment Brazil passed through in 2018 as the perfect storm. How would you describe Brazil on the eve of these elections?

Steven Levitsky – I would say I would describe it in a mixed way. In addition to this perfect storm, Brazil has experienced a pandemic and economic crisis due to the pandemic. The perfect storm turned out to be even worse than we expected in 2018. Considering how bad and deep the crisis was and the presidency falling into the hands of an openly authoritarian figure, I think Brazilian institutions and Brazilian democratic antibodies are working very well. . Brazilian democracy is alive. He is certainly at risk, but Congress, state and municipal governments, the Judiciary, especially the Federal Supreme Court, have played a strong role in fending off and restraining Bolsonaro in some of his worst impulses. It could have been worse.

BBC News Brazil – Who or what represents the greatest threat to Brazilian democracy?

Levitsky – I think the biggest threat to democracy right now is the President. One of the things we discussed how democracies die for the most part, democracies in the 21st century do not die by seizing general power and overthrowing the president, as they did in Brazil in 1964. It is usually the president or prime minister who undermines democracy. Nobody expected that the president of the United States would lead a coup in 2016, we call it a coup d’etat in Latin America, but he did because if you elect a president who does not believe in democracy, that person is very likely to use the powers of the presidency to illegally try to stay in power. Trump tried to do that. I can’t predict the future, but I think there’s a serious risk that Bolsonaro would try to do something similar.

BBC News Brasil – What exactly do you mean by “something similar”?

Levitsky – Bolsonaro copied Trump in many ways. One thing he has done is exactly what Trump has done: questioning the legitimacy of the elections. Brazil has an incredible, impressive electoral system. There has never been a serious problem with the integrity of this system. And now, all of a sudden, Bolsonaro is questioning whether the election will be rigged. He invented it. It is a lie told to create a kind of legitimacy for some unconstitutional, illegal and even violent efforts to discredit or discredit the elections that it may lose and to reverse or even annul the election results.

• US worried about elections in Brazil

BBC News Brazil – Is there a possibility of a democratic break in Brazil?

Levitsky – Yes, it could happen (there could be a disconnect), that doesn’t mean it will happen or very likely. There is no democracy that is completely safe from rupture, all of them are vulnerable to some degree. While Brazil has a very solid democracy, one of the strongest in Latin America, if you have a relatively close election and Bolsonaro uses that as an excuse to declare some kind of emergency, and maybe the military might get in that situation.

BBC News Brazil – Like Bolsonaro, the Ministry of Defense questions the security of the Brazilian electoral system. Can the military support a democratic break?

Levitsky – Ditto. I wouldn’t say it’s very likely though. It was always clear that the US military would refuse to cooperate with any authoritarian Trump venture. I think this applies to Brazil as well. The military is unlikely to cooperate with Bolsonaro, but first of all, Brazil has a long history of military intervention that is very different from the United States. The return of the military to the political arena in Brazil in recent years has been particularly problematic. The military’s recent statements questioning the integrity of the electoral process, which are completely fabricated, are very worrying.

BBC News Brazil – What does Bolsonaro’s re-election mean for Brazilian democracy?

Levitsky – There are three results. Bolsonaro could lose and go home, which is probably the most democratic outcome. Because whatever one may think of Lula, he is a less authoritative figure than Bolsonaro. If he wins the elections democratically, it will not represent the death of democracy, but for Bolsonaro a second term would be very dangerous for democratic institutions. This will give him more control over the courts and other institutions. The worst outcome is that he loses the election and manages to hold power undemocratically and uses the military to effectively steal or reverse the results.

• PT’s death in Paraná: What questions still need to be answered after the police investigation?

BBC News Brazil – What would be the implications of a victory for poll leader Lula?

Levitsky – It would be good for democracy. The alternative is always useful. This prevents people from accumulating too much power, especially when the established are authoritarian. People have different opinions about Lula, but I don’t think anyone sees him as seriously authoritarian. He ruled Brazil for eight years, and he did it democratically. He (if elected) may be a good, mediocre, or even terrible president in a third term, but he will not be an authoritarian president. Lula should be the best she can be at this age and be a bridge to the future.

BBC News Brasil – Many critics of Bolsonaro see his actions as an attack on democracy, but under Lula Brazil had “Mensalão” when members of Parliament received improper payments to vote in favor of government proposals. Was this an attack on democracy?

Levitsky – Indirect. Corruption should be condemned. Corrupt leaders must be investigated… I will not advocate corruption. Authoritarianism and corruption are not the same thing.

BBC News Brasil – Given the level of polarization, will elections be able to calm Brazil?

Levitsky – Not. In many ways, American democracy has been less stable since the elections, and there are reasons to expect the same in Brazil. Bolsonarism is weaker than Trumpism, partly because Bolsonaro has no party. Trump has an entire political party in a two-party system. This gives him more destructive power than Bolsonaro. But whatever happens, things will remain unstable and polarized, especially if it’s a close election. Lula is in some ways the right person to get Brazil out of this crisis, but also not. You talked about corruption and he is a polarizing and unpopular figure. From the beginning (in a new government) there would have been much more opposition to him. Also, Brazil is big and has always been an unequal and very difficult country to govern, even at the best of times. Even God would have problems running Brazil during his next presidency.

BBC News Brazil – Recently a PT member was killed by a Bolsonaro supporter. Eyewitnesses claim that he shouted “Here’s Bolsonaro” before the murder. Do you think it is possible to associate the president’s rhetoric with such crimes?

Levitsky – I haven’t followed Bolsonaro’s rhetoric enough to say that in recent months. But I can say that we have seen a huge increase in violent rhetoric by Trump and his allies in the United States, and this has clearly led to an increase in political violence. When political leaders engage in violent rhetoric, their supporters are more likely to engage in violent behavior. It is really important in a democracy that politicians firmly condemn violent behavior.

BBC News Brasil – Could the situation get worse until or after the elections?

Levitsky – Ditto. Brazil is very polarized, very radicalized. There is a significant number of guns and armed people, and there is a high level of violence, including paramilitary violence, which is very high in society. If the president or other politicians promote this type of violence, as Trump did in the United States, it could easily lead to more violence.