Which democracy was saved?

Lula's victory over Bolsonaro in the 2022 elections helped to curb the authoritarian escalation of the far right in Brazil. However, at a time when democratic values ​​are being challenged around the world, and a process of de-democratization is being observed by numerous scholars, the question remains as to what kind of democracy is possible today, especially in peripheral countries.

If, for a long time, our analytical lens on democracy was marked by European and North American influences, today we have more theoretical resources to relativize this synchronicity. The "democratic event" appears different between developed countries and those that find themselves on the margins of global decisions.

In Brazil, for example (but this happens similarly throughout Latin America), the democratic order cannot be properly conceived without including historical, social, and economic factors, of course, but also without taking into account class configurations throughout the centuries. It is fundamental to start from certain historical conditions, such as the distance cultivated by the wealthier classes in relation to the less favored. A context in which it is important for the former that certain inequalities are maintained, so that their supposed superiority is perpetuated.

If we take, for example, public policies directed at the poorest since 2016, we will see how the Temer and Bolsonaro governments were responsible for strengthening a state less responsive to the demands of ordinary citizens. Since then, we have seen a deliberate weakening of the social agenda and government actions allergic to distributive policies. Such policies provide, in mature democracies, dignity to the working class and, consequently, social peace.

But, beyond the class struggle to maintain centuries-old social distancing, what matters to our economic elite is that the working class be excluded as political subjects. In other words, it is fundamental to this exclusionary logic that our democracy always has the means at hand to negate the popular will expressed through voting. In Brazil, there is always the risk of a coup d'état or impeachment whenever mitigating social inequalities is treated as an important agenda item for a national development project.

It is in this sense that essential issues, such as redistributive policies aimed at reducing social inequalities, are treated merely as rhetorical backdrops for party programs. If this rope is stretched too far, the government could be overthrown. 

In a country where beneficiaries of targeted income transfer programs are labeled lazy and unproductive, themes like cooperation and solidarity are treated as alien to the dominant logic, that is, the neoliberal logic. One of its most terrifying consequences is that the erosion of the social agenda in recent years has once again placed the country on the map of hunger and food insecurity.

In this type of democracy, it is not ordinary citizens who decide on the political and social program that best represents their aspirations. Such decisions are made by a political elite that, subordinated to financial capital, competes for the manipulation of the popular will.

We can ask ourselves whether a democracy that cannot guarantee its citizens the minimum conditions for existence remains democratic. It seems we still have a long way to go in improving our institutions so that an inclusive national project can be built. If our democracy proves fragile and not very inclusive, on the other hand, we can affirm that it is still better than any type of authoritarianism that seeks to replace it.