"Bolsonaro Isn’t Preparing for a Coup. He’s Preparing for a Revolution."

Petr

Administrator
This shitlib opinion piece may actually make Bolsonaro look slightly cooler than he really is, but it would be indeed commendable if he has done some serious work in planting the seeds of grassroots Rightist resistance in Brazil - it is especially noteworthy that this Lefty academic is worried that the Reds may not be able to challenge the Bolsonarists in the streets:


Bolsonaro Isn’t Preparing for a Coup. He’s Preparing for a Revolution.


08 Sep 2022

Miguel Lago

The New York Times

It’s election season in Brazil, and the usual buzz of activity fills the air. The press is eagerly following the campaigns, running profiles of candidates and speculating about future coalitions. Supporters of the candidate in the lead, the former president Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, are heatedly debating who the next cabinet ministers will be. And all involved are crisscrossing the country for rallies, in an energetic effort to get out the vote.

Yet Jair Bolsonaro, the country’s far-right president, stands apart. While his challengers have spent months looking forward to the election, he has sought to preemptively discredit it. He has questioned the role of the Supreme Court and cast doubt, volubly and often, on the electoral process. He speaks as if the election is an encumbrance, an irritation. He says he will not accept any result that is not a victory.

To some, this looks like the groundwork for a coup. In this view, Mr. Bolsonaro intends to refuse any election result that does not please him and, with the help of the military, install himself as president permanently. The reading is half right: Mr. Bolsonaro doesn’t intend to leave office, regardless of the election results. But it’s not a coup, with its need for elite consensus and eschewal of mass mobilization, he’s after. It’s a revolution.

Since the beginning of his term, Mr. Bolsonaro has behaved more like a revolutionary leader than a president. In his first month in office, he said that his role was not to build anything, but to “undo” everything. Rather than run a government, he’s tried to disrupt it. He refused to fill roles in crucial regulatory agencies, placed supporters with no technical expertise in high positions, underfunded social programs, punished civil servants for doing their jobs and neglected to provide a coordinated response to the pandemic, which killed over 680,000 Brazilians.

It’s not destruction for its own sake, however. Dismantling the state is how Mr. Bolsonaro galvanizes his supporters. By identifying clear enemies and antagonizing them, he excites his followers and, crucially, enlists their support. Everything he does — decrees, bills, pronouncements, demonstrations, alliances — is framed for the digital infrastructure of YouTube, Telegram and WhatsApp. The more radical his actions and words, the more engagement he generates.

Support for Mr. Bolsonaro may start online, but it leads to the streets. For the past year, Mr. Bolsonaro has conducted a bimonthly “motociata”, a march with thousands of motorcycles that looks very much like a brute show of strength. His presidency, in fact, aspires to be a permanent rally. On Sept. 7 last year, Brazil’s Independence Day, he gathered almost half a million people to protest against the Supreme Court. On the same day this year, he has promised a big military parade to show the army’s support for his government.

It’s not just the military. Many of Mr. Bolsonaro’s most fervent supporters are notable for their power over common citizens. He is popular among police officers — a 2021 study estimated that 51 percent of Brazilian street-level police officers were active members of pro-Bolsonaro groups online — and he is also a favored candidate among gun owners. Of those who approve of his government, 18 percent say they already have a gun at home and almost half would like to have one.

They may get their wish. One of the major achievements of the Bolsonaro administration has been to weaken gun control, flooding the country with firearms. In 2018, there were around 115,000 people with special licenses to carry a gun in the country. Now there are over 670,000 people holding these licenses — more than in the police and the armed forces. A substantial number of them adore Mr. Bolsonaro and are organized into a vast network of nearly 2,000 gun clubs.

Militant and committed, these are the foot soldiers of any future revolution. There’s a lot we don’t know about how that might come about. But it’s clear that if a contingent of supporters, armed and determined to keep Mr. Bolsonaro in power, burst into Brasília, the capital, it would create chaos. In many major cities, it’s not impossible to imagine an insurrection led by police forces — while truck drivers, overwhelmingly pro-Bolsonaro, could block the roads as they did in 2018, creating havoc. Evangelical pastors, whose congregants by large margins support the president, could bless those efforts as part of the fight for good against evil. Out of such anarchy, Mr. Bolsonaro could forge dictatorial order.

Who will stop him? Probably not the army. Mr. Bolsonaro, after all, has many supporters in the military and over 6,000 military personnel working in his government, filling civilian roles. For its part, the army seems to be relatively relaxed about a possible takeover and has — to put it mildly — no special attachment to democracy. There is no sign, as far as can be seen, that the armed forces could be protagonists of a coup. But neither is there a sign that they would resist an attempt at revolution.

Democratic forces are unlikely to fare much better. For all Mr. da Silva’s popularity, left-wingers seem to have lost their capacity to rally the masses. The 13 years of a left-led government that ended in 2016 did much to disperse and weaken social movements, and they have struggled in the years since to recover their dynamism. Demonstrations against Mr. Bolsonaro, for example, have been poorly attended. And political violence is on the rise: A member of Mr. da Silva’s party, for example, was recently killed by a Bolsonaro supporter. People would certainly think twice before going to the streets to defend a Lula victory.

The best bulwark against a revolution, curiously, might be the United States. The Biden administration could make clear the profound costs, in the form of sanctions and international isolation, that would follow any seizure of power. That in turn could frighten big Brazilian businesses — which, as influential backers, can exert considerable pressure on Mr. Bolsonaro — into defending democracy. If the difficulties of executing a revolution are too great and the rewards seem slim, it’s conceivable that Mr. Bolsonaro will back down — or simply stage a performance, as former President Donald Trump did, to maintain control over his followers and prepare the ground for the next election.

The last time Brazil experienced similar political chaos was in 1964, when a military coup removed a democratic government that was trying to carry out progressive reforms. It took just a few hours for the United States, then led by Lyndon Johnson, to recognize the new government of Brazil.

A lot hinges on the hope that the United States now values democracy a bit more.


Miguel Lago is the executive director of the Institute for Health Policy Studies and teaches at Columbia University.
 

Petr

Administrator
And here is another Leftist scribbler - amidst all his usual bogeyman rhetoric, he confesses that many Brazilian Socialists are not very enthusiastic about the way Lula has allied himself with neoliberal cuckservatives to take down Bolsonaro; it is similar to the disgust many "Bernie Bros" felt towards the idea of having to vote for Hillary.

As the Brazilian Reds thus see their old hero turning into a senile sellout, raw enthusiasm is on the side of Bolsonaro supporters, like it was on the side of Trumpists back in 2016:


Rather than mounting a campaign based on political vindication, or the return of left-of-center governance, Lula has instead presented himself as the common-sense, stable solution to Bolsonaro’s ongoing political chaos. Lula has said on more than one occasion that “Brazil is [currently] without government.” In response, he has forged an anti-Bolsonaro coalition that has moved toward the center in the hope of appealing to a broad swath of voters who reject the current president’s far-right extremism.
Lula has made his centrist orientation crystal clear with his choice for running mate, Geraldo Alckmin, the former governor of São Paulo. Alckmin was one of the main pillars of the neoliberal PSDB long opposed to the PT. Once rivals, Alckmin and Lula have now joined forces, with Lula praising his former rival in a show of pragmatism that many had forgotten was possible in Brazilian politics:
In the 2010s, the opposition to my government were my adversaries, not my enemies. I dream of the polarization we had in the 2010s. A democratic Republic needs to have polarization. What it doesn’t need is hatred.
Though the move certainly displeased many on the Left, the prospect of defeating Bolsonaro has taken precedence for most. Lula has since consistently led in the polls, often by large margins, although the race has tightened somewhat as the election draws nearer.
For those of us on the Left, it’s obvious that the Lula of 2022 is not the same politician who won the presidency in 2002 — who, in turn, it must be acknowledged, was no longer the icon of Brazilian socialists in the 1980s and ’90s, when he first emerged as a trade union leader and national political candidate during the PT’s early years.
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
This is a shitlib poll, and I have a strong hunch that Bolsonaro is going to perform better than this, but it is noteworthy that even here, the middle-class and upper-class people seem to be mostly on Bolsonaro's side - I take this to mean that in Brazil, the bourgeoisie cannot afford so much virtue signaling as they do in the United States, where such types as suburban wine moms like to display their hatred of Trump:

 

Macrobius

Megaphoron
I take this to mean that in Brazil, the bourgeoisie cannot afford so much virtue signaling as they do in the United States, where such types as suburban wine moms like to display their hatred of Trump:
I take minor exception to this read on the US side of it (I do not know about Brazil): In the US, 'Trump Derangement Syndrome' was a form of groupthink that very closely aligned with institutional capture of Secondary Education (esp. college and some graduate school, if not entirely with 'professionals'), the Media, as well as a history (demographics) of progressivism -- esp. the Boomer/Millennial intergenerational connection. Also, secularised but 'anti-Libertarian/Individualism' sorts -- the normal Statist/Tory sort of classes. They would have been Calvinist Prohibition 'do-gooders' in a different era.

I don't think most 'persons of colour' are quite as deranged as their White equivalents -- however they will vote 'Left' for the same reasons their South American counterparts think they will be better off as Venezuela than Brazil. They won't be and in the worst case they develop a chip on their shoulders and go 'full Haitian' to the country's and their own destruction. But there is no real cure for that either except taking away the franchise. If we are to have Mob Rule, then we shall not long have Liberal Democracy, Populist or otherwise.

Also, I think women are more prone to displays of groupthink in general. So really, we are just seeing 'democracy' on a known population base with known demographics. Unfortunately, there is nothing in the notion of 'Democracy' to halt insane or deranged 'factions', and no restraint to pure if predictable group dynamics.

Anyway, I disagree with the take that it is self-indulgent Virtue Signaling, combined with an economic factor that lowers the cost for the VS luxury good until it can be afforded by the middle class. That is a moralising narrative about the dangers of fatuous indulgence, but if it weren't TDS it would be Temperance or Suffragism, or burning Witches, or whatever -- IT'S NEVER GONNA STOP with Yankee Do-Gooders, and it can and has been manipulated for centuries now. I think it is group dynamics and very deliberate propaganda on the part of some Oligarchs to control the 'chattering classes' exactly the way they would control or incite a mob.

The nearest European examples (besides subpopulations of Britain) are probably the Dutch or the Danes.
 
Last edited:

Petr

Administrator
It seems, at the very least, that Bolsonaro is not going down without a fight, and his opponent, the very best candidate that the Brazilian Left had, does indeed seem to be well past his prime, and winning, if he wins, only thanks to nostalgia:

 

Macrobius

Megaphoron
The Pink Tide seems to be a real force in South America right now... these things go in cycles as you can see...


On the other side, of course, we have Pinochet, the VERY FIRST NEOLIBERAL RULER ON THE PLANET... ancestor of Thatcher and the Clintons, really.

And, of course, the Masters of the Universe and their Washington Consensus:


Quoting:

Original sense: Williamson's Ten Points[edit]​

The concept and name of the Washington Consensus were first presented in 1989 by John Williamson, an economist from the Institute for International Economics, an international economic think tank based in Washington, D.C.[4]

The consensus as originally stated by Williamson included ten broad sets of relatively specific policy recommendations:[1][3]

  1. Fiscal policy discipline, with avoidance of large fiscal deficits relative to GDP;
  2. Redirection of public spending from subsidies ("especially indiscriminate subsidies") toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
  3. Tax reform, broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
  4. Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
  5. Competitive exchange rates;
  6. Trade liberalization: liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
  7. Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
  8. Privatization of state enterprises;
  9. Deregulation: abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudential oversight of financial institutions;
  10. Legal security for property rights.
- 30 -

My very favourite economic blog on this is 'Naked Keynesiansim' which gives (because the author is like from there) an excellent view into Latin American' economic policy, in both Spanish and Portuguese.


Americans for sure should pay more attention to their 'backyard'.
 

Petr

Administrator

Jair Bolsonaro’s ‘beef, bible and bullets’ coalition is here to stay

Brazil’s controversial president and his allies were the real winners in the first round of elections

MICHAEL STOTT

Jair Bolsonaro may have finished in second place in Sunday’s presidential election in Brazil, but his tally of 43.2 per cent outperformed pre-election polls and propels him into the runoff with fresh momentum. Many of his allies and former cabinet ministers were elected to congress and to state governorships. His Liberal party will form the largest bloc in the senate.

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, the leftist former president, won 48.4 per cent of the votes. He remains the favourite to win the second round on October 30, but his initial reaction that Sunday’s result was merely an “extension” to the campaign belied the magnitude of the left’s disappointment.

Results from the presidential, congressional and state governors’ races suggest that Lula and his Workers’ party (PT) have yet to convince most Brazilians that they have learnt the lessons from past economic mistakes and corruption scandals. Lula “hasn’t really felt the need to come up with new ideas”, says Anthony Pereira, director of the Kimberly Green Latin American and Caribbean Center at Florida International University. “He is a little bit stuck in the past.”

The 76-year-old former president’s vote held up well in Brazil’s poor north-east after a campaign focused on combating poverty. But he was less successful in the three most populous (and wealthier) states of São Paulo, Rio de Janeiro and Minas Gerais. Here Bolsonaro’s allies led the governors’ races or won them outright.

There will thus be no rerun of the “Pink Tide” leftist momentum that swept Lula into office in the 2000s with more than 60 per cent of the vote. His coalition was projected to improve its showing in congress slightly, but will fall well short of a majority.

If the former president does prevail in the second round, it will be much harder for him to govern an intensely polarised country. The hard left also increased its strength in congress.

The first-round result reflects deep changes that have taken place in Brazil over the past decade, in particular the growth of the agribusiness lobby, the evangelical churches and the gun lobby, all key allies of Bolsonaro. Brazil’s hard right “is now much more organised and sophisticated”, says Monica de Bolle of the Peterson Institute for International Economics in Washington.

If Lula does win a third term, “the chances are that he will end up disappointing, not because of anything he does, but because the country is so extremely polarised”.

The big losers were the parties of the centre, and the “third way” presidential alternatives. The PSDB party of former president Fernando Henrique Cardoso had its worst election this century, failing to reach the runoff for governor of São Paulo state and seeing Eduardo Leite, one of its brightest future presidential hopes, only narrowly squeak into the second round for the governorship of Rio Grande do Sul, the state he governed before.

A highly polarised presidential campaign fought largely over the personalities of Bolsonaro and Lula left little space for reasoned policy arguments. Simone Tebet and Ciro Gomes, the third- and fourth-placed presidential candidates, managed only 7.2 per cent of the vote between them. Neither offered an immediate endorsement to the frontrunners. Gomes’s 3 per cent support is likely to lean left, but Tebet’s 4.2 per cent may split more evenly.

Investors took heart from Sunday’s result, believing that Lula will have to move further to the centre to win. Some believe that a Bolsonaro win and more market-friendly economic policies are now possible.

But those hoping for an end to the personal attacks and near-total absence of debate about policy that have blighted the campaign so far will be disappointed. The second round is likely to bring further polarisation and a greater risk of violence.

Fears of a messy final outcome to the presidential election, with Bolsonaro and his highly organised movement of well-armed supporters contesting the result, will grow.

The president has frequently questioned the validity of opinion polls and the legitimacy of Brazil’s electronic voting system. On Sunday, Bolsonaro claimed that “in a clean election we will win with over 60 per cent of the vote”. The result, which showed that pollsters had underestimated his support, will only have emboldened him.
 
Top