In an era of climate change, Brazil has just experienced a veritable far-right tsunami at the ballot box. How can we interpret the mix of emotions and rational calculations that led many people to consider a shift toward the far right as the solution to our problems?
The first point is that Brazil is a very large country, and there are many of us. And although we are a deeply distrustful people, as surveys such as those conducted by Latinobarómetro indicate, we should not regard our neighbor, coworker, or even someone we dislike as an enemy.
We think differently; that is part of life. This is democracy’s most important value, and it is now at risk with the prospect of the Bolsonaro family returning to the presidency.
Generally speaking, it is common to hear people talk about “nepobabies” online and laugh at their cases. The term “nepos” refers to the practice of nepotism, a political and legal concept dating back to the Middle Ages.
Nepotism is the favoring of family ties—that is, the act of giving preferential treatment to one’s own relatives, such as a father, son, brother, and so on—in employment and workplace relationships. These are, indeed, common cases that drive entire families into bankruptcy, bring businesses down, and often conceal deaths or sexual abuse. The point—and here is my suggestion—is to consider how contemporary politics in Brazil is reproducing a problematic pattern that occurs in many households, families, and neighborhoods.
Nepotistic practices replace the assessment of merit—that is, the recognition that a person possesses established knowledge of the work they are expected to perform in public office—with the simple consideration of family ties. In this respect, when we consider the political sphere and the Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches, nepotism is a practice that violates constitutional guarantees of administrative impartiality, insofar as it grants privileges based on family relationships and disregards the technical competence required to hold public office.
In this sense, the rationale behind efforts to combat nepotism is to strengthen the Republic and resist attempts to concentrate power that privatize public space. These are attempts to turn, for example, the Presidency of the Republic once again into the Bolsonaro family’s own backyard.
The involvement of the Liberal Party (PL) candidate in scandals involving the diversion of public funds and militias is a matter of public record, and these cases have been criticized by the right itself. On the other hand, there is no doubt that the climate of polarization has run its course. There is a sense of exhaustion, a desire for change hanging in the air, and that desire is legitimate.
The biggest problem with this scenario is the idea that the Bolsonaro family’s nepobaby can solve the country’s problems. This is the very person who has created problems and clashed with his stepmother, Malafaia, and Tarcísio; the same person whom the other three right-wing candidates—Nery, Caiado, and Renan Santos—refuse to support and have harshly criticized.
The fear, which must be taken seriously, is precisely that attacking democracy, the law, the rule of law, and its institutions might be seen as a better path toward the country’s future.
These are not merely left-wing arguments, as some might claim. They are facts, many of them drawn not from the government but from the very criticisms that the right itself has leveled against the current opposition candidate, Flávio Bolsonaro.
That is why this is a moment for reflection—and that is precisely why the political system provides for a runoff election: so that, once again, the population can pause, take a breath, and reflect on the decisions it must make.
One way to think about the criticisms of the far-right wave is to examine what we can learn from the statements made by Flávio Bolsonaro’s own interlocutors. Renan Santos is the most forceful in his criticism. Last Sunday, he stated that Brazil risks being governed by “the most corrupt member of the Bolsonaro family,” “a nobody in terms of charisma or intelligence.”
A second point is that anyone voting for Flávio should be aware that one of his campaign promises is precisely to ensure that the law does not apply to the Bolsonaro family. As Renan points out, one can expect his first steps to include securing his father’s release.
This notion of an unethical family is, in fact, that of a family oriented toward criminality. It is not a matter of lacking values, but of holding deeply misguided ones—values that lead to arrogance, malice, impunity, and cruelty. These values create serious distortions: Dad can pay his way out, or the law will not apply to my son.
Perhaps this “family of wickedness” is going unnoticed by a large segment of the population. Is this really what the country is going to choose? Family first, even if that family is criminal? The answer lies in the hands of the voters.
Autor
Professor of Political Science at PUC-Rio and holder of a PhD in Social Sciences from the same university. Member of the #NoSinMujeres.
