The contagious power of model coined by Donald Trump was fully revealed on Sunday in Brasilia when a crowd of fanatical supporters of Jair Bolsonaro He assaulted the headquarters of the three powers of the State. Like on January 6, 2021 in Washington, the insistent repetition of a delegitimizing speech of the electoral victory of Luiz Inácio ‘Lula’ da Silva in October he activated an angry mass, which in this case demanded a military coup that would bring Jair Bolsonaro back to the presidency. Unlike what happened in the US two years ago, the main instigator has more ostensibly washed his hands of it. But also, in contrast to what happened at the Capitol, the assailants have benefited from the passivity, if not collusion, of the two highest authorities of the federal district: the governor and his Secretary of Security. Ingredients all typical of an attack against the democratic institutions whose perpetrators -beyond the thousand or so of the detained assailants- must specify justice and the parliamentary commission of investigation that different parties are already demanding.
Once again, they have become visible the vulnerability of democracy and the aggressiveness of the extreme right when he believes that the ballot box is not enough to guarantee his control of the instruments of the State. Something especially worrisome when the country in which the events take place is the largest economic power in South America, the most populous state and also the scene of lacerating inequalities, with a social structure that is especially conducive to populist demagoguery and discontent. of the elites that for generations have held all the levers of power in their hands. Precisely because of this singularity and dimensions of Brazil, what happens there affects and influences the rest of the continentwhich is experiencing a new wave of progressive governments and the manifest discomfort of some specific economic sectors -agrifood and extractives, in particular-, accustomed to getting the most out of extremely dual societies.
Trump’s toxic magistery has emboldened those who see democracy as an obstacle to their designs and in the former president, the beacon and guide to violate the rule of law. But this has also resisted here, with an example of institutional unity (the joint note against any anti-democratic attempt by all the powers of the State, the presidency, the judiciary and the presidents of the two legislative chambers) that has included prominent representatives of Bolsonarismo with a clarity that contrasts with the collusions of the Republican Party. Each attack, however, leaves a scar on the system. Which, in the case of Brazil, will determine the presidency of Lula, without a majority in Parliament, at the head of a diverse alliance of parties and with the most prosperous states governed by politicians from the extreme right.
The support for Lula expressed by the United States, by the Latin American democracies, by the European Union and by each one of its partners are a necessary support to consolidate his start in office, but they should not mislead: his return to the command bridge does so in a context of social confrontation and rooting of the ultra non-existent message during his two previous terms. Then, the jubilation of the victories did not find opposition in the street; now, in the face of the promised social reforms, it is unknown whether the mobilized bolsonarism will be inevitably disavowed by the embarrassing day before part of its own bases (and the US precedent is not hopeful), or if it will continue to be a future threat spurred on by a leader who supported the camps outside the barracks until the end.