At a time when political reflection is becoming empty, it is imperative to look beyond appearances and superficial rhetoric. Last week we came across the president of Venezuela, and candidate for re-election, Nicolás Maduro, making comments about the Brazilian electoral system worthy of a Bolsonaro supporter – from printed ballots to non-auditing of votes. Taking a critical look at the discursive proximity of Jair Bolsonaro and Nicolás Maduro reveals an uncomfortable truth: both are, and always have been, part of the same family. Despite being on apparently opposite political spectrums, the authoritarian essence they share is undeniably united.
In Brazil, we are witnessing a spectacle of hypocrisy in which electoral rhetoric suggests that Lula would turn the country into a new Venezuela. However, the more attentive realize that this narrative only serves to mask Bolsonaro’s own admiration for the Venezuelan authoritarian model. The “civic-military-police union”, as Maduro calls it, is Bolsonaro’s dream. This reveals the hypocrisy of the electoral rhetoric that Lula would turn Brazil into Venezuela. The most attentive of us know that these people love a now-dead ideologue who used to say: “Accuse your opponents of what you do, call them what you are” (and it’s not Lenin, who never said that).
The Brazilian right often uses Venezuela as an example of everything that is wrong with socialism. This criticism is often distorted by a cultural war, more concerned with demonizing the “enemy” than promoting a genuine analysis of the country’s conditions. Some stories are rehashed from the Cold War and flood Brazilian social networks, associating the government’s pseudo-communism with the humanitarian crisis experienced by the Venezuelan population, largely due to the anti-imperialist, anti-US rhetoric contained in speeches since the so-called Bolivarian Revolution.
However, Bolsonaro himself has on several occasions expressed admiration for Hugo Chávez, recognizing the former Venezuelan president’s militaristic bias. In 1999, the year Chávez took power in a military coup, Bolsonaro said that he was “hope for Latin America” and that he would like his “philosophy to reach Brazil”. Furthermore, in 2006, Chávez advocated arming a million Venezuelans to consolidate his power – a rhetoric eerily similar to Bolsonaro’s at the infamous ministerial meeting in April 2020, where he suggested arming the Brazilian population. The Venezuelan government is militarized, as is Bolsonaro’s cabinet, which over time has become more and more like a meeting of the high command of the Armed Forces, from the Ministry of Health to, ironically, the Civil House.
Hugo Chávez also took other steps that seem to inspire Bolsonaro: he increased the number of seats on Venezuela’s Supreme Court, allowing his supporters to be appointed and guaranteeing decisions favorable to his government, a model inherited by Maduro. Bolsonaro, in a similar move, expressed his desire to expand the Federal Supreme Court (STF) and frequently referred to the ministers he appointed as “his own”. This attitude reveals a common authoritarian pattern: the attempt to subordinate the Judiciary to the Executive in order to ensure perpetuation in power.
When it comes to relations with opponents, the two are very similar, except that Brazil has maintained some institutional restraints that no longer exist in Venezuela, which has prevented some of Bolsonaro’s authoritarian advances. There, the so-called Special Actions Forces of the police are accused of persecuting opponents and oppressing the people, even using extrajudicial executions and a long list of abuses. Here, Bolsonaro has used the Federal Highway Police (PRF) in actions outside its scope, equipping it for combat and empowering agents. Not forgetting the attempt to prevent voters of his main competitor from getting to the polls in the second round of the 2022 election. In addition, both used government intelligence agencies to spy on opponents, journalists and even supporters, as we are discovering with the investigations into the actions of the Brazilian Intelligence Agency in the Bolsonaro government. These parallels show the closeness of the authoritarian tactics common between the two leaders and that they both share the same visions of how to govern.
This ideological rapprochement becomes even clearer when we analyze Bolsonaro’s relationship with the neo-Pentecostal segment of Protestant churches. In Venezuela, the Universal Church of the Kingdom of God, led by Bishop Edir Macedo, declared its support for Nicolás Maduro and advocated an end to sanctions against the Venezuelan regime, entering the local elections headlong. They gained access to the government budget and even created a program to equip churches. This support reveals a glaring contradiction: while in Brazil, Bolsonaro and his supporters denounce Venezuela as an example of the failure of “anti-Christian leftism”, his allies of faith are building ties with the Maduro regime, wanting the benefits of the king’s friends.
On the international stage, Maduro and Bolsonaro show similar preferences for authoritarian rulers. The greatest symbol of this today is Vladimir Putin. Putin’s Russia is one of Venezuela’s main trading partners and its main military partner, despite Western sanctions. With Bolsonaro, Putin’s relationship was crowned with an official visit by the then Brazilian president days before the start of the “special military operation”, or rather, Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. On that visit, Bolsonaro referred to the Russian president as “dear friend” and described Brazil’s relationship with Russia as a “perfect marriage”.
Electoral manipulation is another point of convergence between Bolsonaro and Maduro. Maduro, in designing an electoral process favorable to his regime, frequently attacks the legitimacy of elections in other countries, including Brazil, which took the lead in the Barbados agreements, together with Norway, seeking to bring Venezuela back to democratic normality and the consequent removal of economic sanctions. Maduro has already been accused of manipulation in previous elections and has a clear aversion to international observers, preferring to conduct his elections without the external scrutiny that could expose irregularities. As a result, as soon as the electoral commission released the results on Sunday night (28), there were many expressions of distrust from the international community.
Maduro also sees Brazil’s electoral woes as an opportunity to weaken the country’s regional authority, adding fuel to Bolsonaro’s delusions. For his part, Bolsonaro doesn’t hesitate to attack the Brazilian electoral system, feeding conspiracy theories and raising unfounded suspicions about fraud before, during and after the elections, sowing distrust and instability. A curious detail is that, in Venezuela, votes are recorded in electronic ballot boxes with a printed receipt at the end – a model very similar to the one Bolsonaro exhaustively defended ahead of the 2022 elections. Interesting, no?
When threatened with losing power, both Bolsonaro and Maduro resort to the rhetoric of fear. Both evoke images of “bloodshed”, “popular uprisings” and “civil war” to justify their authoritarian actions. In some cases, they also encourage violent movements, as in the case of January 8 in Brasilia and the post-election situation in Venezuela. It’s an old trick: every authoritarian seeks a pretext to cling to power, manipulating the fear and insecurity of the population. This strategy is not new, but it is effective in maintaining control and suppressing opponents. As journalist Ricardo Noblat said, after trying so hard to hold on to power in Brazil, imagine how envious Bolsonaro must be of his “friend” Nicolás Maduro…
In the end, the discussion of right and left no longer contributes to the global political debate. The current divide is between authoritarians and democrats and, as observers of international politics, we cannot avoid the responsibility of pointing them out. In a society that values freedom and democracy, recognizing this distinction is crucial. It is up to us, as citizens, to defend democratic values and fight any form of authoritarianism, regardless of its origin. Therefore, the proximity between Bolsonaro and Maduro is not a coincidence, but a clear demonstration that authoritarianism is disguised in different ways, but always with the same objective: to maintain power at any cost.
Sources
https://veja.abril.com.br/politica/bolsonaro-defende-hugo-chavez-em-entrevista-de-1999
https://www.poder360.com.br/midia/internautas-compartilham-montagem-de-maduro-e-bolsonaro/
https://www.intercept.com.br/2024/03/19/igreja-universal-apoia-nicolas-maduro-na-venezuela/
https://brasil.elpais.com/brasil/2019/08/26/internacional/1566812838_110189.html
