January 8th: Narrative, Amnesty, and the Survival of Democracy

Fantastical narratives devoid of any sense of reality are part of Jair Bolsonaro's strategy for engaging with his base. In an interview released on Saturday (January 6), he claims that the events of January 8, 2023, were a "trap set by the left" and that "right-wing people don't do that kind of thing."

The date January 8, 2023, cannot be considered a landmark merely to remember a day when democracy was vilified, nor as an act in itself, a product of the recent situation. It is necessary to analyze more closely what led to that fateful day of attempted coup, the behavior of Brazilian society over the years, the intensification of positions against rights, and the response – or lack thereof – from institutions.

After four years of a government that fostered toxic polarization, with his pronouncements as head of the Executive Branch inciting his followers against constitutional principles and the other branches of government, Bolsonaro calls for a "return to normalcy" and says that the current climate is not good for Brazil.

Bolsonarism, with the rise of the leader who gives it its name to the highest office in the Republic in 2018, made evident the danger of the absence of parameters regarding intolerance.

Democracy, as a system of governance based on a plurality of ideas and political opinions, can paradoxically facilitate the activities of groups and individuals who wish to harm or overthrow it. 

The hijacking of the banner of freedom of expression to spread hate became Bolsonaro's government strategy. While attacking journalists and treating political opponents as enemies, he opened investigations against groups, social movements, and opposition figures, censored public data, and publicly attacked anyone who criticized him. 

Unlike other systems, Brazil has never established legislation that differentiates between freedom of expression and hate speech, treating cases individually within the justice system.

The vandalism perpetrated by a contingent of individuals against state structures, in a demonstration of dissatisfaction with the election results, shows, beyond the momentary event, the disturbing truth that a significant portion of society is not very fond of constitutional principles and respect for differences and plurality, and is willing to tolerate and support authoritarian regimes.

Historians show that there is much to investigate about societal behavior in relation to dictatorial regimes, beyond the dichotomy of repression. versus resistance.

Nowadays, these studies must take into account contemporary factors and phenomena such as social networks, algorithms, and the production of echo chambers, which generate parallel beliefs and realities, both in politics and beyond.

Enriching reflection is necessary to move beyond the surface of macro-level analyses. Likewise, the response must go far beyond the concrete issue of assigning responsibility for actions.

The so-called broad, general, and unrestricted amnesty that followed the 1964 military coup was the price to pay for redemocratization. Paradoxically, this limited the country, especially younger generations, from learning about the history of the torture and death chambers, of the serious human rights violations committed by the Brazilian state against its citizens. The right to information and truth became an instrument of manipulation to erase years of horror.

In this sense, it is fundamental to find, judge, and condemn those responsible for the acts of January 8, 2023, including the financiers, instigators, and intellectual authors. The "no amnesty" social media campaign carries the weight of a cry for the truth to be fully exposed. But it is important to understand that this is not enough to prevent similar or identical episodes from happening again. 

Both Bolsonaro's speech and that of his supporters show that the narrative dispute surrounding the episode is still ongoing. And this dispute, however absurd and unfounded we know it to be, cannot be underestimated when people get their information – or misinformation – on social media, within their bubbles. 

In the mechanisms of self-defense of democracy, the most urgent task is combating false information that distorts the process of forming public opinion. 

The permissiveness of widespread lies circulating in an organized manner on social media compromises the manipulation of people's sense of reality, generates an environment of growing distrust, and is a serious disruption to the functioning of democratic processes.

This process is paved, through action or inaction, by transnational corporations with a purely economic interest in monetization gains, and private interests that prevail over those of the country.

The regulation of platforms to combat fake news is crucial to counter the serious dangers to Brazilian democracy and human rights in confronting disinformation that embodies arbitrariness and intolerance. Bill 2630 has been under debate in the National Congress since 2020, and has been deliberately nicknamed the "Censorship Bill" by those who want to perpetuate criminal practices and a distorted way of doing politics. It's time to approve the text.