As the Venezuelan elections impact the entire South American region, a pressing question arises: Will Brazil follow Venezuela’s authoritarian lead, or adopt the more liberal trajectory of Argentina? President Nicolás Maduro’s regime has intensified his repression on the opposition, raising international concern. While almost all South American countries have vocally refused to recognize Maduro’s victory—especially Presidents Milei in Argentina and Lacalle Pou in Uruguay—Brazil’s ambiguous stance raises alarm.
Initially, President Lula even stated that if the opposition has proof of fraud, they need to present it. Now, he says he doesn’t yet recognize Maduro as winner of Venezuela election and suggests fresh elections or coalition government as potential solutions to political crisis.
President Lula’s statement overlooks the fact that elections have already occurred, and the results should be respected as a matter of sovereignty. By suggesting that the opposition needs to present proof of fraud and proposing fresh elections or a coalition government, Lula not only ignores the well-documented and publicly presented evidence supporting the opposition’s claims of victory but also implicitly questions the integrity of the concluded electoral process.
Despite President Lula’s confusing and problematic statements, just three days after the controversial elections on July 28th, the Organization of American States (OEA) failed to pass a resolution demanding transparency and the presentation of electoral fraud records by just one vote. This failure was partly due to Brazil’s abstention from voting for more transparency. This situation not only highlights Venezuela’s long history without genuine opposition since Chávez came to power in 2002, but also how Maduro has escalated this to a new level. His modus operandi includes detaining opponents without warrants and taking them to the infamous Helicoide torture centre in Caracas.
The situation in Venezuela reminds us all of how fragile democracies can be when the government controls the media and maintains a close relationship with the military. Important to mention, this didn’t happen overnight; it took two decades for Venezuela to reach its current state. The authoritarian path Venezuela has taken began under Hugo Chávez with the 2004 Law on Social Responsibility in Radio and Television, which granted the government extensive powers to censor and control private media outlets. This law marked the start of a sustained attack on free speech, paving the way for Maduro’s draconian measures today.
Maduro’s regime has managed to suppress dissent and manipulate electoral outcomes. The recent suspension of Twitter (now X) operations for 10 days and threats against WhatsApp exemplify the regime’s relentless control over communication channels.
Brazil, under President Lula, presents a different, yet equally concerning, scenario. While Lula’s relationship with the military does not mirror the Venezuelan model, there are troubling signs regarding media control. Lula has publicly criticized the press and supported legislative measures aimed at regulating media content, drawing uncomfortable parallels to early Chávez-era policies. Additionally, even the First Lady of Brazil, Rosângela Lula da Silva, known as “Janja”, has made comments against Twitter and political opponents, echoing tactics used by Maduro.
Yet, Brazil’s electoral processes, unlike Venezuela’s, remain relatively transparent and credible. The 2023 election, although contentious, allowed for international observers, contrasting sharply with Venezuela’s exclusionary practices. On January 8, 2023, however, Brazil witnessed vandalism and violence similar to the United States’ January 6, and the authorities’ response was disproportionately rigorous, with peaceful protesters detained in poor conditions without clear charges.
In contrast, Argentina’s trajectory, while troubled, has not reached the same authoritarian extremes. The election of the libertarian candidate Javier Milei came after years of economic instability and political disillusionment. Milei’s rise reflects a public desperate for change after enduring prolonged hardships and socialist policies. Although Argentina faces significant challenges, its democratic institutions remain relatively intact, in a way that allowed the victory of someone like Milei. This would never be possible in Venezuela.
The dictatorial military regimes that Brazil and Argentina left behind in the 20th century emphasized the separation of civil branches and the military. Neither of them wants to revisit the ghosts of dictatorship. This distinction, however, is something we have not yet seen in Venezuela. Economically, however, Brazil is on shaky ground. Minister of Economy Fernando Haddad, known for his pro-communist stance in academic writings, has implemented anti-market policies that have caused the Brazilian real to perform worse than the Argentine peso in the first half of 2024.
Despite inheriting a stable economy from the previous administration, Brazil’s economic performance has deteriorated, raising fears of further decline. According to data from the Central Bank of Brazil compiled by Austin Rating, in the first half of 2024, the real depreciated by 11.0% against the dollar, while the Argentine peso lost 10.8%. In stark contrast, the Argentinian peso has remained relatively stable, despite Argentina’s more severe economic challenges.
Brazil stands at a crossroads. The consolidation of media control and military alliances seen in Venezuela’s decline provides the perfect signal of alarm to Brazilians. Simultaneously, Argentina’s ongoing struggle with economic instability and its recent political shift offer lessons on the consequences of prolonged governance failures. Brazil’s path will depend on its commitment to democratic principles, economic policies, and the protection of free speech.
Only time will tell whether Brazil will follow Venezuela’s descent into authoritarianism or navigate challenges more like Argentina, maintaining its democratic institutions amid economic turmoil.
Izabela Patriota holds a PhD in Law Political Economy from University of São Paulo and is the director of development of the Ladies of Liberty Alliance.
