The guilty verdict of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, often called the “Trump of the Tropics,” shows a level of accountability here that many in the U.S. wish could be matched at home. But the ruling could end up polarizing a nation whose divisions brought the populist leader to power in the first place.
On Sept. 11, the five-judge panel delivered its historic verdict. Alongside seven co-defendants, Mr. Bolsonaro was convicted on all five counts of attempting a coup to remain in power after he lost re-election. He was sentenced to 27 years and three months in prison.
“History teaches us that impunity, omission, and cowardliness are not options for pacification,” Alexandre de Moraes, the lead judge on the case, said as the trial opened Sept. 2.
Why We Wrote This
Former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro’s 27-year prison sentence for an attempted coup is seen by many worldwide as a win for democracy. But in a deeply divided Brazil, what does it mean for faith in the justice system?
For many in Brazil and abroad, the guilty verdict is a win for democracy, demonstrating the resilience of the country’s institutions just 40 years after the end of the 1964-1985 military dictatorship. But Brazil’s powerful judiciary has faced criticism for being too politically active in the past, and in the deeply divided country some are concerned that the momentous trial could risk undermining confidence in the courts.
“The [legal] process is important,” says Diego Werneck, a law professor at Insper business school in São Paulo. He says given the attempted coup, it was paramount to figure out who was responsible and how to hold them to account. But the exercise of carrying that out has been marred by controversies over procedural issues like pre-trial arrests, the defense’s access to the vast evidence files, and the speed at which the trial has taken place. “A series of wrong decisions can be bad for the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, even if the final judgement is right.”
Debate over court’s purview
The court ruled that Mr. Bolsonaro led a criminal organization involving ministers and members of the armed forces to illegally cling on to power beyond his 2019-2022 term. This included spreading mistrust in the voting system ahead of the election, contemplating military intervention after he lost, and even drafting a plan to kill his successor Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, commonly known as Lula. The judges said the coup attempt culminated in the Jan. 8, 2023 attacks on government institutions in Brasília by Bolsonaro supporters hoping to unseat the new Lula government.
The decision was not unanimous. Judge Luiz Fux voted against convicting Mr. Bolsonaro and five co-defendants of an attempted coup d’état, after arguing the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction to try the case (an argument pushed by the defense). “It is not in the Supreme Court’s competences to hold a political trial on what is good or bad, convenient or inconvenient, appropriate or inappropriate,” Mr. Fux said while explaining his position in a 13-hour speech on Sept. 10.
Mr. Bolsonaro, under house arrest since August, has always denied the charges. He found a powerful ally in U.S. President Donald Trump, who called the trial a “witch hunt” and slapped sanctions on Judge Moraes. An August poll showed 36% of Brazilians did not believe Mr. Bolsonaro planned a coup (just over half said he did).
Trust in the judiciary has traditionally been low in Brazil, reflecting widespread mistrust in public institutions that is common across Latin America. Experts also say that differing opinions about a top tribunal’s decisions are a normal part of democracy, particularly in Brazil where the 11-member Supreme Court has broad powers to rule on a plethora of public interest issues, from constitutional rights, to tax matters, to the alleged illegal actions of individual elected officials.
And in recent years, “the Supreme Court has increasingly taken on a responsibility for cleaning up politics,” says Estefânia Barboza, a law professor at the Federal University of Paraná. This isn’t limited to targeting actions by conservative politicians: In the 2010s, the Supreme Court heard two big corruption cases that put members of Lula’s Worker’s Party behind bars. This contributed to a public impression that the court had turned into a political actor.
Recent efforts by the far-right to delegitimize the judiciary has amplified mistrust, says Dr. Barboza. Mr. Bolsonaro’s supporters have even called for the impeachment of Justice Moraes and the court’s closure.
Mr. Moraes has become a lightning rod in Brazil. He has come to represent for the public the controversies over the court’s role as a political arbitrator. As lead judge on a number of Bolsonaro-related cases, he opened investigations, ordered arrests and the shuttering of social media accounts, and took many decisions alone.
This is allowed under the court’s regulations, as long as the full bench later votes on whether to maintain the decision. But experts say it should be exceptional and the court overuses it. Supporters say it’s been necessary to protect democracy. Detractors brand Mr. Moraes a tyrant. Moderate critics like Dr. Werneck worry that unilateral procedural decisions risk weakening due process and that people’s trust in the justice system will be dictated by their opinion of individual justices.
According to a poll released during the trial this month, 50% of Brazilians say they trust the Supreme Court and 47% do not. The split falls largely down political lines – among people who voted for Lula in 2022, 73% trust the court. That trust falls to 22% among Mr. Bolsonaro’s voters.
That was evident on the streets during Brazil’s Independence Day, which fell halfway through the trial. “I think it’s fair. [Mr. Bolsonaro’s] being given the right to defense,” says Marcia Santiago, a teacher who joined a left-wing demonstration on the sidelines of the official military parade in Rio de Janeiro on Sept. 7. Across town, Bolsonaro supporters draped in Brazilian and U.S. flags – a nod to President Trump’s support for Mr. Bolsonaro – dismissed the proceedings as a “farce” aimed at silencing their political movement.
What next for Brazil?
The trial’s outcome will simply reinforce existing polarization, says Flávia Maia, an analyst on the judiciary at Jota, a publication focused on legal issues. “People’s opinions are already formed,” she says.
But Mr. Bolsonaro’s conviction is not the end of the process. Around two dozen associates are yet to stand trial for their alleged role in the coup plot, proceedings that will likely spill over into next year when presidential elections are due.
In the short term, the Lula government is bracing for the possibility of retaliatory sanctions from the U.S. and faces a political battle in Congress. Right-wing lawmakers are lobbying to pass an amnesty bill that would benefit the former president and his supporters, riding roughshod over the Supreme Court’s verdicts. Some analysts see a negotiated amnesty – perhaps made easier by Judge Fux’s diverging vote – a likely outcome.
“Even though the court is powerful today, it’s difficult to guarantee that its decisions will stick in the future,” says Dr. Werneck. “It is going to be forced to defend its decisions and its role in these coup investigations for a while still.”
