The New York Times Highlights Contrast Between Brazilian and American Democracy in Page Dedicated to Bolsonaro

The renowned American newspaper The New York Times devoted an entire page in its international edition to discussing the political situation of former President Jair Bolsonaro, drawing comparisons between the democratic systems of Brazil and the United States. The article offered a sharp critique of the role played by Brazil’s Superior Electoral Court (TSE), emphasizing that it is this institution that determines who can run for president—unlike in the U.S., where voters decide.

The analysis compared the challenges faced by Bolsonaro and former U.S. President Donald Trump. While Bolsonaro is dealing with legal proceedings that have rendered him ineligible and may lead to prison, Trump is preparing for another attempt to return to the White House, despite facing legal investigations. At the heart of the critique lies the difference in how each country addresses electoral legitimacy and leadership selection.

In Brazil, the TSE is responsible for deciding candidates’ eligibility, a role that many consider excessively interventionist. The newspaper questioned how a court, composed of appointed, unelected judges, could directly interfere with the people’s decision, thereby stripping society of the power to choose its leaders. In the U.S., despite numerous investigations and legal cases involving Trump, nothing prevents him from running for president again, leaving it up to voters to decide at the polls.

The TSE’s Influence on Brazilian Politics

The article highlighted that the TSE’s actions spark debates about the judiciary’s limits in a democracy. In Bolsonaro’s case, the court ruled him ineligible until 2030, barring him from running for office in the coming years. This decision, while based on accusations of abuse of political and economic power, is seen by critics as an encroachment on the will of the people.

The New York Times noted that for many Brazilians, the electoral system appears increasingly centralized in judicial decisions, which contrasts with the American belief that popular vote should reign supreme. Meanwhile, Trump faces his legal battles but remains eligible to seek political support, reinforcing the stark difference between the two democracies.

Democracy Under Debate

The report also addressed how Brazil’s electoral system affects the international perception of its democracy. According to the newspaper, the centralization of power within the TSE limits political plurality and competition, calling into question the independence of institutions that should act impartially. In the U.S., the primary system allows voters to choose candidates who best represent them, even amidst controversies and investigations.

The analysis raised a crucial question: to what extent can or should a court limit a citizen’s right to run for public office? And how does this impact popular sovereignty, which is the cornerstone of any democracy?

The Impact on Bolsonaro and Trump

While Bolsonaro faces the fallout from his decisions during his presidency and ongoing investigations, Trump continues his political path with solid grassroots support and a system that permits his candidacy. This contrast underscores the differences between the two nations and raises questions about which democratic model is more effective in safeguarding popular sovereignty.

The New York Times article not only analyzed the current situations of Bolsonaro and Trump but also sparked a broader reflection on the limits of judicial power in contemporary democracies. Brazil, with its centralized electoral system, and the U.S., with its emphasis on popular decision-making, offer distinct visions of how a country’s political future should be determined.