Brazil Deserves Better than Bolsonaro

by Rafael Serra

The political scenario in Brazil has been unstable and unusual for a couple of years now, and it has impacted the population in a major way. Former Brazilian president, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, member of the Worker’s Party, who served from 2003 to 2010 was convicted on charges of money laundering and corruption and was arrested in April of 2018. Da Silva attempted to run in the 2018 presidential election, which brought more chaos to the country and made many Brazilians furious, but he was disqualified under Brazil’s Clean State Law. Da Silva was succeeded by Dilma Rousseff, who was from the same party. After finding her guilty of breaking Brazil’s budget laws, Rousseff was impeached in August of 2016, and the vice-president at the time, Michel Temer, took office temporarily until the end of the term. In her last speech as president, she tried to defend herself against supposed falsa allegations. She said, “I do not have bank accounts abroad; I never received bribes; I have never condoned corruption” (Lopes 2). According to Lopes, “Rousseff appeared to believe that a ruler’s actions cannot be challenged as long as he or she rose to power through popular support” (2).

These events made the Brazilian population rethink about who should govern the country and if a major change was needed, which lead to the election of Jair Bolsonaro in the 2018 elections, who has “consistently and openly promoted a racist, homophobic, misogynist discourse in which he has argued in favor of torture and dictatorship and expressed a strong hostility to human rights” (Castro 1). Many questions arose after the far-right congressman and former army captain was elected, but most of them were related to one central question, why did Bolsonaro’s supporters vote for him? After conducting field research on a variety of ages and backgrounds in the run-up to the first round of voting in the presidential elections in early October 2018, Castro stated that “Bolsonaro’s supporters want change-and not just a change of political parties, but a change to the entire system in Brazil” (3).

Many people describe Bolsonaro as fascist and neo-Nazi, as well as a threat to democracy. One example of how Bolsonaro’s actions might go against democratic views was the situation with American journalist Glenn Greenwald. Greenwald was charged with cybercrimes for unearthing messages from the government, “accusing him not just of publicizing the information, but of taking part in a “criminal organization” that hacked into the cellphones of several prosecutors” (Londono and Casado), and people doubted if Bolsonaro was involved in this decision. Londono and Casado say that “Mr. Bolsonaro’s office declined to say whether the president or his aides were consulted about the decision to charge Mr. Greenwald” (“Gleen Greenwald in Bolsonaro’s Brazil: ‘I Trigger a Lot of Their Primal Rage”), but according to Rodrigo Maia, the center-right Speaker of the House, the case was a threat against freedom of the press. He said, “Without a free press there is no democracy” (Londono and Casado).

            During times of instability, we can see an increase in demagoguery, or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people, rather than by using rational argument. This concept was seen a lot during the 2018 Brazilian elections, and it can still be seen to this day in Brazilian politics. To analyze how people use demagoguery when talking about politics in Brazil, and more specifically when mentioning the name of Jair Bolsonaro, I will use the concept of binary thinking, explained in the book Demagoguery and Democracy by Roberts-Miller, where we see people with the same views as us as good, and people with different ideas as evil. I will also use the concept of charismatic leadership, where followers blindly believe the leader’s statements. Additionally, I will use Lloyd Bitzer’s idea of the rhetorical situation, or propitious moment for action to explain how it positively affected Bolsonaro’s election, and how he used a moment of crisis to gain more followers and support from the people. Lastly, I will employ Rhetoric by Aristotle to analyze how some of the rhetorical techniques helped Bolsonaro in his run for the presidency. Specifically, I will use ethos to explain how Bolsonaro’s character and background influenced his popularity in the 2018 elections.

During times of instability, we can see an increase in demagoguery, or practices that seek support by appealing to the desires and prejudices of ordinary people, rather than by using rational argument.

            Mr. Bolsonaro has not been receiving good feedback since he assumed the presidency. After showing “opposition to the system and corruption” (Castro 2), referring to the previous government, he was accused of criminal conduct by his minister. According to Londono, Casado, and Andreoni, “President Jair Bolsonaro was already struggling to govern effectively when his star minister resigned and accused him of criminal conduct” (“A Perfect Storm in Brazil as Troubles Multiply for Bolsonaro”). Even after all the claims that he has made related to fascism and the struggle to govern the country, there are still people who support him. Lago and Orofino say “the truth is more disturbing: Mr. Bolsonaro knows what he’s doing” (“Bolsonaro Is Bizarre. But He Knows What He’s Doing”), a couple of lines after saying “Far from taking control, Mr. Bolsonaro has reveled in chaos” (“Bolsonaro Is Bizarre. But He Knows What He’s Doing”). This is an example of charismatic leadership, which “satisfies our desire to be part of something bigger, and, paradoxically, to hand all power over to someone else can make us feel more powerful because we think that person is the best version of ourselves” (Roberts-Miller 59). Here, the authors “blindly believe the leader’s statements” (Roberts-Miller 58), and “his followers are his eyes, ears and teeth” (Lago and Orofino ), meaning that no matter how absurd Bolsonaro’s statements are, his followers will support him because they have as much difficulty admitting flaws or errors on the leader’s part as they do on their own (Roberts-Miller 59).

            Mr. Bolsonaro needed a strategy to gain popularity before the 2018 elections, as well as to make people put aside what he has said and done in the past. He used the demagoguery strategy of binary thinking, where “actions are either good or bad, rather than lying somewhere on a range” (Roberts-Miller 54).  Castro said that “According to many of his supporters, Brazil faced a choice in the election between God and the devil. For them, the choice was between good and evil, dark and light, shadow and sunshine” (4). Bolsonaro did this by attacking his rivals, and “the violence of his words has been matched by his body language: his main campaign symbol, which went viral in social media, was to cock his fingers like a gun with which to shoot his political enemies” (Castro 1). Referring to his enemies as evil or bad wasn’t enough to keep Bolsonaro’s popularity high; he needed to silence another important mean of communication, the media. He has said several times that the Brazilian population should not rely on “traditional media outlets to get information, because they don’t have anything good to say about Brazil” (Barbara). Instead, the population should only watch his live broadcast, where according to Mr. Bolsonaro, “there is no misrepresentation, you get the news straight, as it is supposed to be given” (Barbara). This strategy is used by Mr. Bolsonaro to prevent people from getting negative information about him and to take control of the news.

He was able to use the concept of binary thinking because of the poor political situation that Brazil was going through at the time, and the events involving members of the opposed party, such as the imprisonment of former president Luiz Inacio Da Silva and the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff, gave him a reason to attack them, as well as a response that fitted the situation. In this case, the response related the former government to the devil and him to God, who would save Brazil from the horrible situation it was going through. This concept of a propitious moment for action is called Kairos in rhetoric, and it “invites a fitting response, a response that fits the situation” (Bitzer 10), which was used effectively by Mr. Bolsonaro in his political campaign.

Mr. Bolsonaro relied heavily on the rhetoric ethos, where “persuasion is achieved by the speaker’s personal character when the speech is so spoken as to make us think him credible” (Aristotle I. II). His campaign “drew heavily on religious imagery, socially exclusionary rhetoric, and a strong nationalist ethos, exemplified by his slogan: My party is Brazil” (Castro 1). Although these strategies helped him to gain votes in the election, it has caused thousands of deaths during the pandemic that we currently face. Londono stated that “Mr. Bolsonaro’s cavalier handling of the pandemic has contributed to a national response that public health experts regard as one of the worst in the world” (“Brazil’s Bolsonaro, Leading Virus Skeptic, Says He’s No Longer Infected”). By trying to maintain this image of a strong guy, who has served in the army and is not scared of anything, “he sabotaged quarantine measures imposed by governors by attending rallies, shaking hands in public, and urging Brazilians to continue working” (Londono), which made the virus spread quickly.

Although these strategies helped him to gain votes in the election, it has caused thousands of deaths during the pandemic that we currently face.

We can notice from the examples above that demagoguery is a useful tool in politics, especially in political campaigns where a candidate is trying to deteriorate the image of his or her competitors. The less information people have about demagoguery, the easier it is to persuade them by exploring emotions and ignorance, and that is why it is important to know how to recognize demagoguery in someone’s speech and propose an alternative to this problem. The best thing you can do to not fall into this trap and recognize when demagoguery is present, including in politicians’ speeches, is “you might choose to argue with family, friends, or random people who are repeating demagogic talking points” (Roberts-Miller 101). To do that, it is important to get familiar with fallacious arguments, because being able to name a fallacy in an argument is very helpful (Roberts-Miller 109).

In the world of politics, you should be able to recognize when the fallacy “false dilemma” is being used. This happens when there is a “limited number of options, generally forcing one’s hand by forcing one to choose the option he or she wants” Roberts-Miller 112). This was seen in the 2018 Brazilian elections when Mr. Bolsonaro stated that the population has to change the political party that is running the country, otherwise they will never see any improvements. Another fallacy you should know is “straw man,” which means dumbing down the opposition argument, where a rhetor is responding to arguments their opponent never made (Roberts-Miller 119). Mr. Bolsonaro did this when he used the imprisonment of former president Luiz Inacio Da Silva to argue that all politicians from the same party as him are corrupts and thieves, so people should not vote for them.

Events involving politicians from the workers’ party caused hopelessness in the Brazilian population, and that made people desperate, which caused the increase in demagoguery and the rise of a controversial candidate who used the situation in his favor. To avoid a similar situation in the future, people should start to argue with others who are using demagogic talking points, as well as being able to distinguish between good and bad arguments, where you will face a variety of fallacies that you should be able to recognize and discuss. This is important not only in politics but in all aspects of life. You will face arguments that shifts the stasis to group identity and that labels you as an out-group member when discussing issues such as climate change, gun control, immigration, and even the pandemic that we all currently face with the COVID-19, to name a few, so we must start to reveal which arguments are reasonable and valid, and which ones are based on demagogic talking points, which should be automatically rejected.

Written for LANG120 (Falter)