2026 Elections: Inclusive Social Democracy vs. Exclusionary Social Authoritarianism

2026 Elections: Inclusive Social Democracy vs. Exclusionary Social Authoritarianism

We are approaching one of the most decisive elections in the country's recent history. It is up to the Brazilian people to remain fully vigilant not only to the internal maneuvers of the regressive political forces, but also to the external pressures, expressed in the political and economic sanctions of a declining superpower, which, in addition to directly challenging national sovereignty, seeks to undermine institutional stability and weaken the sustainability of the Brazilian executive branch. 

As a coalition government, President Lula, in addition to dealing with internal administrative impasses, needs to forge strategic alliances with the presidents of the two houses of the National Congress, interlocutors who are not always reliable. Added to this are the tensions of "quid pro quo" politics and the avalanche of insults and sabotage from the organized far-right. Even in the face of this scenario of internal pressures and external attacks, the government's assertiveness, especially in its sovereign handling of the crisis in relations with the US, has resulted in a significant improvement in its approval rating, as revealed by the latest Quaest poll, released on August 21st.

This firm stance by the government is also reflected in the actions of Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Supreme Court, who has not yielded to the sanctions imposed by the United States and remains firm in leading the criminal proceedings against the attempted coup d'état. In this context, on August 18, Minister Flávio Dino, in a lawsuit initiated by the Brazilian Mining Institute (IBRAM) questioning the legality of Brazilian municipalities filing lawsuits abroad seeking compensation for damages caused in Brazil, ruled that no company can apply restrictions "resulting from determinations contained in unilateral foreign acts" without evaluation by the competent Brazilian authority, under penalty of violating national sovereignty. The measure sends a clear message against attempts to impose, through transnational means, provisions such as the Magnitsky Act, used by the US against Minister Alexandre de Moraes. 

As expected, the US government reacted quickly on social media. They stated that the justice systems of foreign countries cannot overturn sanctions imposed by US law, as in the case of the Magnitsky Act. In an arrogant tone, as if Brazil were an appendage of their backyard, the American embassy in Brazil replicated the intimidating statement, going so far as to describe Minister Alexandre de Moraes as "toxic." Faced with this reaction, Minister Flávio Dino's decision created an uproar among banks, which began to fear the possible consequences for their operations stemming from the Magnitsky Act. However, there will be no backing down on the part of Minister Dino. Conversely, the co-author of the Magnitsky Act, Democratic Representative Jim McGovern, pointed out to the Trump administration that the application of this law to Minister Alexandre de Moraes is shameful because it contradicts the purpose for which it was originally created. 

In an interview given to the Washington Post on August 18th, Minister Alexandre de Moraes, targeted by sanctions under the Magnitsky Act imposed by the Trump administration for his decisions related to former President Bolsonaro, the defendant in the criminal case he is overseeing, gave a veritable lesson on Brazilian democracy and sovereignty when he stated: "there is not the slightest possibility of retreating even an inch." With subtle irony, he added: "I understand that, for an American culture, it is more difficult to understand the fragility of democracy because there has never been a coup there." The comment, laden with critical intent, led the interviewer and readers to reflect on the United States and the episode of the invasion of the Capitol on January 6, 2021, incited by Trump under the false argument of electoral fraud. That act of insurrection left five dead, several wounded, and a significant number of prisoners. Trump, unlike what is happening in Brazil through due legal process, was not judged, as will be the Brazilian defendants Jair Bolsonaro and the other coup plotters of the crucial core, on September 2nd.  

In this scenario of recurring retaliations by the American government, encouraged by a Brazilian who behaves like an outcast, Eduardo Bolsonaro, a traitor to the nation, the outlines of the 2026 presidential race are beginning to take shape. 

In this context, it is inevitable to question how the candidacies of Bolsonaro's supporters, both from the far right and the opportunistic right, will be sustained in light of the audios released by the Federal Police (PF), in which Silas Malafaia appears in a blatant collusion with the defendant Bolsonaro. And how to justify the accusation that the requested amnesty was intended exclusively for Jair Messias, leaving out those convicted for the acts of January 8th? Furthermore, how to explain the financial transactions of the Bolsonaro family uncovered by COAF, recorded by the PF, totaling R$ 44 million between March 2023 and June 2025?

The electoral battle, therefore, will not only be between candidates, but between opposing projects: on one side, a democratic and socially just project represented by the progressive camp; on the other, the representatives of the extreme right, sell-outs and historical allies of Bolsonaro. Among these names, five central figures stand out, all marked by trajectories of selling out foreign interests, authoritarianism, and contempt for the people: Tarcísio de Freitas, Romeu Zema, Ronaldo Caiado, Michele Bolsonaro and Ratinho Júnior.

Tarcisio de FreitasThe current governor of São Paulo, from the Republicanos-SP party, is another pariah figure. Aligned with the sordid schemes of attacks and attempted violations of Brazilian sovereignty through conspiracies orchestrated by the Bolsonaro family in conjunction with the US, and as the likely heir to the Bolsonaro administration's legacy, Tarcísio had the audacity to suggest that the Brazilian government should deliver some kind of victory to the American government in order to ease sanctions against Brazil. The idea of ​​negotiating Brazilian sovereignty is, at the very least, an insult to the nation and to Brazilians. Tarcísio definitively confirms his absolute inability to govern any federative unit, however insignificant, let alone govern a country. Captain Tarcísio's statement makes it clear how easily he would surrender to another country for an uncertain return. Tarcísio, in an attempt to balance himself between Faria Lima (a wealthy financial district in São Paulo) and Bolsonaro's ideology, reveals himself as he always was: a vulgar deceiver, a pathetic administrator of the liberal far-right who prioritizes the interests of the financial elite at the expense of the people's needs. The people of São Paulo, through their government, have accumulated countless losses due to the numerous concessions of companies and public services to private initiative in 2024, such as sanitation, education, and infrastructure services, which are sectors that require direct state intervention as they are essential services. The people felt the difference before and after the concessions. In the short term, services became more expensive for the population, in addition to the poor quality of care. This ultra-liberal style of the far right, transferring public services to the private sector, has proven disastrous. The concessions are usually granted for below-market value, and often the payments include bribes for those who were decisively involved in the negotiations. Tarcísio also fails in public safety. In the area of ​​education, the government is also the target of severe criticism. Teachers and unions denounce the lack of appreciation for the teaching profession, the reduction in investments, and the deterioration of state public education. The same technocratic logic applied in privatizations seems to guide the management of education. There are constant complaints from the population of São Paulo about police brutality directed solely at the poor, peripheral communities. Tarcísio has repeatedly positioned himself as an unwavering defender of the security forces, which gives the impression of institutional protection and encourages a logic of confrontation, instead of investing in intelligence and prevention. Even in areas where he could excel, such as infrastructure, Tarcísio has prioritized large, high-visibility projects, often aimed at serving business and electoral interests, while structural problems in public transportation, urban mobility, and the population's quality of life remain without effective solutions. The billion-dollar scandal involving Ultrafarma and the management of the company Fast reveals a system of corruption within the São Paulo tax collection system. State Representative Paulo Fiorilo (PT) states that the Palácio dos Bandeirantes (São Paulo state government headquarters) politically shields certain leaders, to the detriment of firm action against corruption.

Romeu Zema, The governor of Minas Gerais, from the Novo-MG party, is yet another shallow and limited figure of the far right. Subservient to Bolsonaro's ideology, he defends amnesty for coup plotters and even promised political pardon to the defendant Bolsonaro. He is an inept politician and an unprepared administrator, as pointed out by sectors ranging from public security to health. His authoritarian and manifestly anti-democratic profile is also revealed in the management of state finances: during his administration, Minas Gerais' debt to the Union increased by 50%. To settle this debt, Zema offered strategic companies such as the Minas Gerais Energy Company (Cemig), the Minas Gerais Sanitation Company (Copasa), and the Minas Gerais Economic Development Company (Codemig), in addition to other sectors of public administration, to federalization. In practice, his real intention is to pave the way for the privatization of these services (Source: Brasil de Fato). Despite his recurring displays of ignorance in various fields, his anti-scientific stances, and his denial of the events that undermined democracy in the country, Zema maintains the support of the Minas Gerais financial and business elite. This elite, aligned with his authoritarian and privatizing style, evaluates state services from an outdated perspective, considering them merely expenses and not potential instruments for sustainable public development, should they be properly managed and linked to public policies capable of raising human development indices in Minas Gerais. 

Fallen Ronaldo From the União Brasil-GO party, governor of Goiás. A far-right Bolsonaro supporter. He is a reactionary, large-scale rural landowner politician. He was a founder of the União Democrática Ruralista (UDR). In every interview, he reiterates that if elected, he will grant amnesty to the defendant Bolsonaro, his cronies, and the Bolsonaro supporters who invaded and vandalized the headquarters of the Three Powers on January 8th. He was one of the most forceful voices against Agrarian Reform. His administration has prioritized the interests of large rural producers, to the detriment of family farming and traditional communities, while simultaneously defending environmental deregulation that further weakens the Cerrado. His centralized and authoritarian leadership style, with little openness to dialogue with social movements, reinforces a profile of a ruler who relies more on confrontation than mediation. Paradoxically, despite being a doctor, Caiado failed to give Goiás' public health system the necessary attention, facing accusations of overcrowded hospitals and mismanagement during the pandemic, when he oscillated between punctual restrictions and concessions to the business sector. In education, teachers and staff complain about the lack of appreciation and the increasing handover of the public network to Social Organizations, which operate without transparency and with questionable results. Although he broke with Bolsonaro in 2020, the gesture was interpreted more as a political calculation than as conviction, since he maintained practices and alliances close to the far-right. Ambitious, Caiado dreams of a place in national politics, but his trajectory reveals a pragmatism typical of old-style politics, where the discourse of independence serves more as a marketing tool than as a commitment to significant change.

Michelle BolsonaroMichelle Bolsonaro, from the PL-DF party, presents herself as a woman of faith and approachable, whose trajectory of personal overcoming is exploited to inspire and captivate the conservative electorate, especially the evangelical one. This image attracts not only the neo-Pentecostal segment, which sees in her story an opportunity to reproduce, in their own lives, a pseudo-victorious trajectory, but also sectors of other religious and social groups that, in part, identify with this narrative. This political capital guarantees her some points, although already declining in voting intention polls. Behind the apparent serenity, Michelle Bolsonaro reveals an authoritarian and anti-democratic inclination. By mixing religion and politics, she skillfully inserts the conservative agenda into her discourse, capturing the support of a conservative and less informed electorate. However, as she intensifies her campaign, the image of a calm voice and gentle appearance loses effectiveness outside her bubble. Her limitation in understanding structural aspects of the national reality in the economic, financial, political, historical-social, and cultural fields becomes evident. In her speeches, she resorts to a simplistic and restrictive spontaneity, similar to that of her husband. Lacking experience in public administration and without the minimum qualifications to hold the Presidency of the Republic, her actions constantly fall into religious sameness, based on neo-Pentecostal dogmas and vulgar criticism of opponents. Although her performance might make her a viable candidate for less important positions, where her unpreparedness would go more unnoticed, she is much like her friend, Pastor Damares Alves, a caricature of the neo-Pentecostal faith.

Carlos Massa Ratinho Júnior The governor of Paraná, from the PSD-PR party, sells the image of a young, modern, and efficient manager, but his political trajectory reveals profound contradictions. Inheriting the media power of his father, the television presenter Ratinho, he rose in politics much more through family projection than through consistent administrative merit. His administration is marked by questionable privatizations and concessions, especially in the highway sector, where high tolls continue to penalize the population, despite promises of fairer rates. The promiscuous relationship with large business owners and agribusiness reinforces the perception that he governs to serve private interests, relegating environmental preservation and the demands of indigenous and traditional communities to a secondary position. In education, teachers and state employees denounce salary freezes, cuts in rights, and the transformation of the public school system into a laboratory for managerial policies that reduce the quality of teaching and treat students and teachers merely as numbers in reports. In public security, his administration carries the stigma of episodes of police repression against social movements and public servants, continuing a tradition of criminalizing protests in Paraná. Although he tries to project himself nationally as a center-right alternative, Ratinho Júnior carries with him practices of old politics, sustained by opportunistic alliances, media populism, and dependence on large economic oligarchies. Behind the rhetoric of innovation, a conservative government persists, focused on maintaining the privileges of a few, while the majority of Paraná residents face expensive tolls, a fragile education system, and weakened public services.

Thus, although each of these candidates seeks to build their own identity, sometimes more aligned with Bolsonaro's ideology, sometimes with the pseudo-moderate right, they all converge on the same conservative and exclusionary project.  

Simultaneously, right-wing, far-right, and centrist parties that make up União Brasil and Progressistas (PP) formalized the super-federation called União Progressista on August 19th, strengthening their firepower against agendas promoting social justice for the majority of the population, in favor of maintaining privileges for the country's wealthy minority, with a prevalence of ultra-liberal agendas in favor of the market. 

This group will constitute the largest bloc of deputies, the largest number of mayors, and the largest party fund for campaign financing. The businessman/Bolsonaro-supporting senator Ciro Nogueira, leader of the PP party, defends the candidacy of Bolsonaro supporter Tarcísio de Freitas, and the lawyer Antônio de Rueda, leader of the União party, supports the large landowner Ronaldo Caiado. 

At this event, Ciro Gomes And his perennial bitterness against the Lula government has resurfaced, rising from the ashes to bolster his chances of running for president in 2026. It's just not known which right-wing party he'll align himself with. A deceiver since forever, with his false anti-establishment rhetoric, Ciro Gomes returns to the scene, truly revealing his true nature, which has never truly been in favor of the people. 

Given this scenario, the 2026 elections cannot be treated as a simple clash between government projects, but as a civilizational choice between defending social justice and national sovereignty, between strengthening democratic institutions and obscurantist and elitist regression. Tarcísio, Zema, Caiado, Michele Bolsonaro, and Ratinho Júnior represent different faces of the same exclusionary project: predatory privatization, amnesty for coup plotters, and the surrender of sovereignty. The country has already felt the effects of the irresponsibility, the dismantling of social rights, the production of liberal policies, the sell-out of national interests, and the mediocrity of this political field. 

It remains for the Brazilian people, once again, to decide whether to follow the tortuous path of exacerbating social inequality and backwardness, or to reaffirm the leftist project which, despite internal and external obstacles, has proven to be the only one capable of guaranteeing sovereign development, social justice, and real democracy.