What Happened
On January 8, 2023, thousands of supporters of Brazil’s right-wing former President Jair Bolsonaro violently stormed federal buildings in Brasília, the country’s capital. The attackers invaded the Supreme Court, Congress, and presidential palace, demanding the overthrow of newly elected President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government.
The insurrectionists, like their American counterparts two years earlier, claimed the election was rigged despite no credible evidence of fraud. Bolsonaro had lost the October 2022 presidential election to Lula by a narrow margin but refused to formally concede defeat, echoing Trump’s behavior after the 2020 US election.
The attack bore striking similarities to January 6, 2021, when Trump supporters stormed the US Capitol to prevent certification of Joe Biden’s electoral victory. Both events featured mob violence, property damage, and attempts to overturn democratic elections based on unfounded fraud claims.
Why It Matters
The contrasting fates of Bolsonaro and Trump reveal how different democratic institutions and political cultures can respond to similar authoritarian challenges. Brazil’s swift and decisive legal response demonstrates that accountability for attacks on democracy is possible, while the US experience shows how such efforts can be undermined by political polarization and institutional weaknesses.
This comparison has gained renewed significance as Trump begins his second presidency, having successfully navigated multiple criminal cases and investigations related to January 6 and election interference. Meanwhile, Bolsonaro remains barred from holding office until 2030 and faces criminal prosecution.
Background
Both Bolsonaro and Trump rose to power as populist outsiders who challenged democratic norms throughout their presidencies. Bolsonaro, often called “the Trump of the Tropics,” openly praised Brazil’s former military dictatorship and repeatedly attacked the country’s electoral system and Supreme Court.
Similarly, Trump spent years undermining confidence in American elections, culminating in his refusal to accept the 2020 results. Both leaders cultivated devoted followings who believed their false claims about electoral fraud.
The key difference emerged in how each country’s institutions responded to these challenges. Brazil’s Supreme Court took aggressive action against Bolsonaro even before the insurrection, investigating his attacks on the electoral system and imposing restrictions on his activities. The court also moved quickly to prosecute participants in the January 8 attack.
In contrast, US institutions moved more slowly and faced greater political resistance. While hundreds of January 6 participants were prosecuted, Trump himself avoided conviction in two impeachment trials and has successfully delayed or dismissed multiple criminal cases.
What’s Next
Brazil’s approach offers lessons for democracies facing authoritarian challenges, particularly regarding the importance of swift institutional responses and bipartisan commitment to democratic norms. The country’s multiparty system, where no single party can govern alone, helped isolate Bolsonaro and build consensus against his anti-democratic actions.
For the United States, Trump’s return to power despite his role in January 6 raises questions about American democratic resilience. Legal experts and democracy advocates continue to debate whether the US system’s emphasis on political solutions over legal accountability has proven adequate to the challenge.
The international implications are also significant, as other democracies watch how the world’s two largest countries in the Western Hemisphere handle threats to their electoral systems. Brazil’s success in holding Bolsonaro accountable may serve as a model for other nations facing similar challenges.
Monitoring how both countries’ democratic institutions evolve in response to these experiences will be crucial for understanding the global state of democratic governance in an era of rising authoritarianism.