BRASÍLIA – The most recent presidential elections in the two largest democracies of the Western Hemisphere are remarkably similar.
In the polls, the right-wing president claimed, without evidence, that the election could be rigged. He suggests that he may not accept losses. And millions of his followers swore to take to the streets at his command.
But the results, at least so far, have been dramatically different.
In Brazil, when the letters show that the incumbent has voted after only one term, the government has responded collectively, quickly and decisively. The President of the Senate, Attorney General, Supreme Court Justices and Heads of Elections went on television together and announced the winner. The Speaker of the House, perhaps the president’s most important ally, then read out a statement reiterating that voters had spoken. Other right-wing politicians quickly followed suit.
President Jair Bolsonaro, politically isolated, silence for two days. Then, under pressure from his top advisors, he agreed to transfer power.
Thousands his supporters took to the streets, blocked highways and demanded military intervention, but the armed forces showed no interest in disrupting the election process. Protests quickly erupted and the government began to transform.
In the United States, the aftermath was longer, more chaotic, and marked by the worst attack on the Capitol in two centuries. President Donald J. Trump and many of his allies deny that he lost the 2020 election.
Two years later, the nation faces one of the most serious threats to its democracy in generations, with many Republicans openly rejecting what has been repeatedly told. is a clean election, including many people promoting that lie as they seek office in the midterm elections. Tuesday.
The different pictures raise a fundamental question: Is there anything the United States, the world’s oldest democracy, can learn from Brazil, a nation emerging from a military dictatorship as President Biden first ran for the White House in 1988?
For its part, Brazil has been closely watching what happened in the United States, where democracy was not broken after the 2020 election but it did.
With similarly turbulent forecasts for their country this year, the Brazilians solidified their system ahead of time. Government leaders have added additional checks to voting machines and checked the results, they standardize polling hours so results will come quickly, and they plan to present a united front after the winner is declared.
Bruno Dantas, chief justice of Brazil’s watchdog, said: “We learned from the experience of the United States, who completed a quick check of election results on election night to pre-process complaints. fraud claims. “We’ve built a network of organizations that anticipate the questions we know might arise.”
The speed of Brazil’s vote counting system is also an important factor.
In many US states, voters use paper ballots, which can slow the counting of votes, and the use of absentee ballots will also increase sharply in 2020 because of the pandemic. The outcome of the election was uncertain for several days. In contrast, Brazil is the only country in the world to use a fully digital system without paper backups, which allows for results within hours of the end of the poll.
That design is exactly what Mr Bolsonaro and his allies have denounced as a dangerous flaw. They argued that without a paper backup, no one could be sure their vote was counted correctly.
Independent experts agree that paper backups add additional reassurance, but they also say that the multiple layers of security built into the Brazilian system prevent fraud and errors.
As Americans wait nearly a week for the 2020 election to be called President Biden, Mr. Trump, his allies and social media pundits have used the delay to sow doubt about voter fraud, the use of lies and conspiracy theories.
In Brazil on Sunday, nearly every vote was counted in less than three hours. Before 8 p.m. local time, the winner, President-elect Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, was announced. Mr. Bolsonaro did not definitively accept the results, but he also did not object.
“The international community has always agreed that the best way to conduct elections is with timely, transparent and immediately announced results,” Pippa Norris, a comparative political scientist at Harvard University who has studied democracies around the world. “Our process is long, lengthy, and poorly managed.”
In part, the challenge in the United States is that presidential elections are organized around rules and practices that vary by state and even by county. In Brazil, elections are run by an independent electoral court, run by a rotating bench of federal judges, beyond the reach of the executive.
Decentralization can be a safeguard against power corruption because it prevents a single point of failure, while also providing an opportunity for localities to introduce rules that extend voting. But the United States is one of the few democracies in the world that doesn’t have a national body that counts votes and publishes the results, Norris said. Instead, the public expects the media to call elections before the official elections are completed a few months later.
However, in the internet age, even with a smooth election, misinformation can still spread.
In that regard, the US government has largely given up, giving tech companies the police what to say online, and identifying and removing posts that violate those rules.
In Brazil, a Supreme Court judge has led an active crackdown on false and misleading posts.
Justice, Alexandre de Moraes, who is also Brazil’s current director of elections, ordered tech companies to take down thousands of posts, with little room for appeal, of which what he said was efforts to combat “fake news” that threatens Brazil’s democracy.
As a result, he became one of the most powerful referees in any global democracy about what can be said online. A week before the vote, fellow election officials granted him the power to unilaterally suspend a technology company in Brazil if it failed to comply with his orders to remove a post within two hours.
Misinformation is still circulating, but likely much less so than in the case of Mr. Moraes’ inaction. However, his forceful approach drew many complaints from the Brazilian right that he was in fact manipulating the election by censoring conservative voices.
What is clear is that he has drastically expanded the power of Brazilian courts over online speech and, at times, issued decisions that raise concerns about whether his efforts will protect the populace. owner or not. instead posed their own threat.
He ordered a raid on the homes of 8 prominent businessmen after only one of them asked him to support a coup in a private WhatsApp group and jailed 5 people without trial for their crimes. social media posts he said attacked Brazilian institutions.
His stern approach creates a complex debate. Misinformation is a dangerous and fast-moving threat that has caused a sizable portion of the country to lose confidence in Brazilian elections.
At the same time, tech companies have repeatedly failed to combat false reports around the world. So when a judge acts decisively against the issue – but perhaps sets a dangerous precedent in the process – many people in Brazil have mixed feelings.
David Nemer, a University of Virginia professor from Brazil who studies disinformation, said Mr Moraes’ approach worked because he moved quickly and forced tech companies to do well. than.
“I am cautiously advocating because of the potential risks,” he said. “However, that does not stop us from arguing for a more transparent process.”
On Sunday night, Moraes himself announced the election results on TV, with 11 other federal officials behind. “I hope from this election onwards the attacks on the electoral system will eventually stop. Delusional statements, fraudulent news,” he said.
Crowd gave him a standing ovation and chanted his name.
Minutes later, the White House issued a statement congratulating da Silva “after free, fair and credible elections” – a sign of support that thwarts any potential attempt to negate the outcome. .
A week later, it became clear that an election that many feared would pose an existential threat to Brazilian democracy, which instead demonstrated the strength of Brazil’s institutions – and even can be a role model for others.
“We find it very difficult to adjust in the US,” Ms. Norris said. “We were always interested in what the founders were up to, as if that would somehow guide us.”
“Really,” she added, “what we need to do is look abroad.”
