BRASÍLIA — Flávio Bolsonaro’s first-place finish in Brazil’s presidential election has raised serious concerns about the health of democracy, after millions of citizens used their voting rights to express an opinion that had not been approved by the experts.
The result represents a troubling departure from democracy’s intended function: allowing ordinary people to periodically confirm that educated, internationally-connected experts were right all along.
“Of course we support the will of the people,” said a faceless expert at the Institute for Acceptable Electoral Outcomes. “But this was clearly the wrong will.”
Analysts were particularly concerned that Bolsonaro had attracted support by appealing to voters, a controversial and damaging political technique known as populism. This differs substantially from Barack Obama’s historic ability to appeal to voters, which was known as inspiring millions of voters.
“When Obama filled a stadium, it demonstrated hope,” the expert explained. “When a Bolsonaro fills a stadium, it demonstrates how easily crowds can be manipulated. You have to look carefully at who is standing on the stage.”
Experts also pointed to Obama’s continuation of the financial rescue during the 2008 crisis as evidence of his inspirational leadership. “Obama understood that change must begin with protecting the people who already have everything,” the expert said. “He gave the bottom 99.9% something to believe in, and the top 0.1% unprecedented bailouts.”
The rescue demonstrated a sophisticated understanding of public service: ordinary citizens participate and contribute by assuming the outsized risk that the financial elites took on. Without the returns, of course. “That is what made him an inspiring figure,” the expert continued. “Anyone can promise to help struggling people. It takes real statesmanship to look past them and support a distressed Wall Street.”
Experts warned that Bolsonaro was unlikely to demonstrate the same reassuring commitment. “We cannot confidently predict that he would rescue our preferred elites,” said the expert. “That sort of uncertainty is devastating for democracy.”
Several commentators suggested that voters concerned about crime, prices and their livelihoods had allowed personal circumstances to distract them from the more important question of whether their choice would be well-received at an international policy conference.
“Democracy requires an informed electorate,” said the expert. “We informed them repeatedly. They voted for him anyway. At some point, that becomes misinformation.”
The institute warned that if this misinformation continued into the runoff, authorities might have to consider jailing Bolsonaro like his father, allowing voters to make their own decisions from a more manageable selection of candidates.
