Religion Meets Politics: A Gateway to Brazilian Illiberal Democracy?
Artwork by Victor Meirelles: The First Mass in Brazil, 1500.
Laying the Groundwork for Religious Populism and Illiberalism in Brazil
In the wake of the first Mass performed upon its soil, Brazil was christened ‘The Land of the Holy Cross.’ The institution of the Roman Catholic Church reigned a dominant over society ––tethering itself to the ear of the ‘divinely-ordained’ Pedro I, the nation’s first emperor post-independence, and subsequently entrenching itself in the heart of every Brazilian thereafter. Through the forced conversion of indigenous peoples, the mass slaughter of dissidents, and the express immigration from Europe, this baptism by fire rendered Brazil's spirit inseparable from Christianity. Yet, despite its cultural centrality and status as the official religion, Brazil has never been ruled by a leader explicitly devoted to the preservation and proliferation of Christian ideals. This dissonance has translated into a significant disconnect between the prominently-progressive ruling elite and the fervently-religious everyday citizen––spawning a political cleavage ripe for populistic exploitation.
In his inauguration speech on January 1st, 2019, Jair Bolsonaro became the first president in Brazilian democratic history to declare his political priority to be the steadfast preservation of family values, maintenance of religion at the helm of political life, and the sovereignty of ‘the people’ to build a society with “no divisions.” This historic event solidified media claims of Bolsonaro being a religious populist, who proclaimed himself as the "liberat[or] [of Brazil] from socialism and political correctness” and ended his speech with the (in)famous slogan: “Brazil above everything, God above everyone.” Since then, the centering of his actions as being a priori grounded in religion has allowed for a more subtle and politically-justifiable turn to illiberal democracy. Bolsonaro is not viewed as an agent of good because he suggests a return to the principles upon which the current republic was founded, but because he promises a departure from Francis Fukuyama’s end of history narrative––a Brazil at last inexorable from its Christian identity. Yet, whether or not Bolsonaro has been able to live up to his original vision of establishing a Christian democracy remains unanswered.
It is useful to conceptualize populism under political scientists Cas Mudde and Cristobal Kaltwasser’s framework, being a “thin centered ideology that considers society to be ultimately separated in two homogenous and antagonistic camps, the pure people [and the morally bankrupt].” This definition should be contextually understood as a separation of society by Bolsonaro into the puritan masses of God-fearing Christians, and a profane, socially-progressive ‘elite’. Illiberal democracy is thus understood through three distinctive elements: democratic elections, ignoring constitutional limits on power, and depriving citizens of basic rights. The interplay of these theoretical concepts will facilitate an understanding of whether or not Bolsonaro has shown consistency as a liberator of the religious people against the corrupt elite as he claimed in his inaugural speech, and if this has materialized in anti-constitutional populist backsliding.
In effect, Bolsonaro has exploited Brazil’s unique religious landscape to form a sui generis Christian populism, restoring Christianity to public life. However, he is failing to instrumentalize this in his attempt to render the nation an illiberal democracy, as he originally promised in his 2019 inaugural speech.
The Rise of a Messianic Figure: Jair Bolsonaro’s Religious Populism
Bolsonaro is a religious populist on account of his statements during periods of political campaign or rule, which emphasize the separation of society into two antagonistic groups––the sacred and the profane. In his 2019 inaugural speech, Bolsonaro began his presidential rule by asserting that he would honor Brazil’s “…Judeo-Christian tradition, fight gender ideology, and preserve [Brazilian] values.” In idolizing practitioners of the Judeo-Christian faiths as worthy of defense and wholly critical to national identity, all while abstractly demonizing gender ideology’s role in societal erosion, the president officializes a culture war––with himself at the helm. Furthermore, the use of the phrase “preserve Brazilian values” in the sequence of “combating gender ideology” and “honoring Judeo-Christian tradition” speaks to their symbolic interrelation. To Bolsonaro, Brazil is foremost an agent of Christendom––deriving identity from faith. The nationhood Bolsonaro alludes to appears only as a means of restoring the presence of Christianity in public life, rendering the nation sacred, as it allegedly was before the left’s ascent.
Such statements thereby suggest an identification between the government and citizenry; to deny the chief executive’s traditionalist rhetoric is to denounce ‘the people’s’ faith––a demonization of opposition as irreligious, and thereby bankrupt. Furthermore, Bolsonaro has continuously referenced the state’s duty as a servant of the majority, highlighting the necessity of minorities to succumb to the volonté générale. In a campaign rally in Paraiba, he asserted that “the idea of a secular state is nonsense—it is a Christian state! And the minorities that are against it can leave.” Functionally, Bolsonaro’s speech dispenses with the notion of serving the ‘whole nation’, narrowing the idea of ‘the people’ only to his fervently religious electorate and rendering political dissidents ‘lower-class citizens.’ He thus creates antagonism between those who seek a return to a moral traditionalism and minorities who stand in the way of this ‘progress’––living up to the legacy of liberation from his inauguration speech. Therefore, it could be reasonably argued that Bolsonaro is, above all, a religious populist, employing statements during political campaign and rule which creates antagonisms between the ‘religious Brazil’ and the ‘corrupt’ progressive elites.
Moreover, Bolsonaro’s actions amid periods of political campaign reflect his veneration for the masses’ Christianity and thereby his religious populism, seen as an antidote to the immorality of progressivism. During the campaign, a Pentecostal minister baptized him as an Evangelical in the Jordan River; though, he did not renounce his allegiance to the Roman Catholic Church. This ‘ecumenism’ represents a concerted effort towards pan-Christian unity: an attempt by Bolsonaro to reach across the aisle to the 22% of Evangelical voters as a unifying figure, harnessing a sacred coalition to combat the ills of “moral relativism, social liberalism, neo-Marxism, and LBGTQ rights.” Corroborating Bolsonaro’s principles of moral traditionalism, this antagonization of progressivism was substantiated by Bolsonaro’s bilateral with Hungary’s populist Prime Minister, Viktor Orban. In the meeting, they discussed the revitalization of the traditional family and praised Christian morality. Calling Hungary Brazil’s “little big brother,” Bolsonaro draws a parallel between the right-wing populism of both nations––implying that there will continue to be ‘Budapest in Brasília.’ In expressing a willingness to continue the close ties of friendship and religious populism of both nations, Bolsonaro solidifies his inaugural declaration. Thus, as Bolsonaro has emphasized the necessity of pan-Christian unity against ‘demonic’ progressivism and made a friendly visit to Orban in Hungary, he has cemented himself as a religious populist.
A Messiah Praying for Democratic Illiberalism: When on a Leash, Jair Bolsonaro Barks but does not Bite
While Bolsonaro has attempted to instrumentalize his religious populism to break free from the executive’s constitutional limitations, his attempts have not been successful. One instance of this has been in his continuous attempts to void any possibility of removal from office by loss or impeachment. Bolsonaro has remarked that if the electronic voting system remains in place in the 2022 elections and he loses, he will claim fraudulence. This was followed by his insistence that “only God would remove [him] from power.” In response, the Supreme Court has launched an investigation and subpoenaed the chief executive, as well charged him with slander for inciting criminal acts, given that misinformation is not commensurate with the freedom of speech outlined in Article 5 of the Constitution. This is significant because it demonstrates Bolsonaro’s attempts to mechanize the accrued religious authority, using this to nullify Article 28 of the Constitution, a mandate on frequently occurring and undisturbed elections for the executive branch. However, his populistic power has not managed to budge institutional guards––making his attempt unsuccessful. In the same light, Bolsonaro is under pressure from over 143 requests for his impeachment by the Congress, due to unconstitutional action. The president pushed back, saying he is the ultimate representative of the Christian Brazilian people and therefore “is the Constitution.” This links to Bolsonaro’s inaugural promises to uphold the sovereignty of the people in spite of threats from left-wing appointed court judges or political dissidents in the legislature. Taking this further, Bolsonaro has warned that he would, as Article 84 allegedly allows him to call in the armed forces to resist Supreme Court orders for his removal. This illustrates Bolsonaro’s brand of anti-constitutionalist backsliding, based on his personal interpretation of the constitution and instrumentalization of the executive’s control over law enforcement. Nonetheless, Bolsonaro’s vision has been thwarted by the Supreme Court, which stated that he will be forcibly removed from office if his constitutional infringements affect the republic’s stability. Therefore, while Bolsonaro has continuously threatened to supersede constitutional limitations by promising to resist removal from office, this has mostly been verbal and inconsequential due to checks and balances by the Supreme Court. As such, while there is a looming threat of descent into democratic illiberalism, Brazil has not yet fallen prey due to Bolsonaro’s empty words.
Finally, even as Bolsonaro has attempted to strip citizens of ‘fundamental’ rights in a move towards democratic illiberalism, these actions have not lasted due to the Supreme Court's refusal to allow constitutional violations by the executive branch. In June 2020, Bolsonaro ordered a halt in the publishing of information concerning the number of COVID-19 cases and deaths taking place in Brazil. This was done as an attempt to retain public support and lessen distress amidst the worsening coronavirus pandemic, dismissed by Bolsonaro as “a little flu” ––an attempt to, as promised, preserve the unity of ‘the people.” Bolsonaro's attitude towards the pandemic worked to appease the Evangelical community, which denounced COVID-19 alarmism to preserve the religious liberty of church attendance. Thus, by attempting to appease his Evangelical base, he strives to maintain national unity in the face of fear––even if it means taking away basic liberties––like health––from others. Nonetheless, in response to the president’s executive decree to omit COVID data, the Brazilian Bar Association urged the Supreme Court to investigate the legitimacy of this action. The Supreme Court of Brazil ruled that transparency and freedom of information were fundamental rights; as such, it was unconstitutional for Bolsonaro to conceal data, for his personal political gain, when it could potentially save lives. This demonstrates that in times when the executive prioritizes its own power over the welfare of the masses, the Supreme Court unfailingly steps in–– maintaining Brazil’s liberal democratic status despite Bolsonaro’s pushback. Hence, the Supreme Court imposed limitations that ruined Jair Bolsonaro's attempt to override citizens' constitutional right for political gain.
Overall, Bolsonaro has consistently attempted to disregard constitutional limitations and the fundamental rights of citizens. However, this has not been successful as the Supreme Court has enforced constitutional mandates which have prevented consolidation of power by the executive.
The Land of the Holy Cross? A Christian Democracy in Name Only
While Bolsonaro is irrevocably a religious populist, given the continuous decisions to invoke Brazil’s inherent Christianity, favor the abstract notion of ‘the people’, and call for pan-Christian unity in the face of progressive opposition, Brazil nonetheless remains a liberal democracy. This is because the constitutional limitations enforced by the Supreme Court upon the executive have restricted Bolsonaro from limiting fundamental rights as well as weaponizing the constitution to transfigure Brazil into his envisioned illiberal democracy. In all respects, Bolsonaro has remained consistent with the statements of his 2019 inaugural speech––for better or worse. However, it seems that the climax has not been reached, as the Brazilian people brace themselves for the 2022 election, wherein Bolsonaro could refuse electoral ousting by mobilizing the army––opting for a hellish descent into illiberal democratic rule.
Felipe Chertouh is a second-year student at Sciences Po Paris. He is French-Brazilian and was born in Rio De Janeiro, Brazil. His interests include free-market capitalism, Catholic thought, liberal democracy, and Western geopolitical strategy. He is currently majoring in Politics & Government with a concentration in International Economics.