Marcus Vinicius de Freitas, a visiting professor at China Foreign Affairs University and senior researcher at the Policy Center for the New South, wrote for AA Analysis what the Brazilian general election results held on October 4 mean for the future of the country.
Brazilian voters have issued a warning that neither Brasília nor foreign capitals can ignore. Senator Flavio Bolsonaro's first-round lead over incumbent President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva reflects frustration with the cost of living, insecurity, debt and institutions, especially the Supreme Court. Even though there is foreign support in the campaign, the dissatisfaction of the Brazilian people is obvious. After all, defending the country's sovereignty does not excuse the flaws in administration.
Lula's toughest opponent is his own actions. Except for a brief interruption, he has held the post of president for nearly 16 years since 2003. Lula cannot continue to present himself as the solution to the problems that persist under his rule for long. Although Lula's past achievements are still important, political memory cannot pay the price today. The real challenge is convincing voters that familiar leadership can create a different future. Political fatigue cannot be overcome simply by recalling past successes.
Risk of political patronage in diplomacy
Yet domestic frustration does not give foreign governments the right to dictate Brazil's direction. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's video support, Argentinian President Javier Milei's participation in Bolsonaro's election campaign launch, and US President Donald Trump's acceptance of the candidate in question clearly reveal the preferences of these countries regarding Brazilian politics. A president's acceptance of a candidate does not mean much on its own, as Trump also met with Lula. However, when all these gestures towards Bolsonaro come together, questions arise about at what stage diplomacy between countries will turn into political patronage.
Economic pressure makes it difficult to protect the border in question. Washington put forward commercial and diplomatic justifications for customs duties and visa restrictions. However, official discourse does not eliminate political consequences. Trump has publicly linked previous tariffs to the treatment of former President Jair Bolsonaro, while members of the Bolsonaro family also claim they have a hand in America's pressure on the country. A country subject to economic sanctions cannot expect those imposing sanctions to be impartial observers.
Two days before the vote, on October 2, the United States suspended in-person consular services while Australia closed its embassy, citing security concerns. Brazilian police reported that no concrete evidence of an attack plan was found. Although the allegations were unfounded, this led to coup rumors spreading on the internet. Whatever the intention, such measures risk reinforcing perceptions of instability at a politically sensitive time.
The main priority is freedom of negotiation
Washington's understanding of the hemisphere causes a larger problem. Trump's revival of the Monroe Doctrine, in particular, evokes a historical confusion in which the United States believes that excluding foreign powers gives it authority over its neighbors. However, when Latin America declared its independence, it did not choose to obey the USA in exchange for European tutelage. Common geography means common interests and responsibilities, it does not establish a hierarchy of dominance.
From this perspective, pressure on Brazil also serves Washington's aim of reducing Chinese influence. Brazil's markets, infrastructure and critical minerals, including rare earth elements, make the partnerships it establishes strategically important. Lula defends the country's right to pursue these partnerships without permission. Despite the administration's shortcomings, this principle serves enduring national interests. While international competition is transformed into development opportunities in Brazilian diplomacy, the country must also resist demands for exclusive loyalty. Brazil needs competitive investment, access to technology and market resources, and freedom to negotiate.
A change of government may legitimately shift diplomatic priorities, but this should not mean mortgaging the country's future to the preferences of foreign leaders. Mineral wealth should form the basis of Brazil's development. Alliances that narrow commercial and diplomatic opportunities will create significant costs in the long run.
Israel's intervention has its own political logic. Netanyahu's support resonates with evangelical and conservative voters, who attach importance to Israel based on religion and civilization. After Lula compared Israel's actions in Gaza to the Holocaust, former Israeli Foreign Minister Yisrael Katz declared Lula persona non grata in February 2024. On this level, Bolsonaro's promise to move the embassy to Jerusalem would mean a diplomatic step back.
Brazil's relations with the Arab world are important both commercially and diplomatically. A country that aims to be a voice beyond regional divisions loses credibility when it adopts partisan affiliation as the fundamental principle of its foreign policy. Friendship with Israel does not require giving up independent judgment on Israeli government malpractices.
BRICS, a key platform for Brazil's global ambitions, is turning into another testing ground for the country. Bolsonaro's willingness to consider withdrawal deserves examination, but Brazil's economic structure restricts ideological freedom. China is deeply integrated into the country's trade and production processes, and influential groups in the country want these ties to be preserved. Rather than severing ties, a more likely option seems to be to withdraw politically, that is, to become less committed to the group and take a backseat to organizing the Global South.
None of the factors listed above spare Lula from disappointments within the country. Bolsonaro's support within the country does not make foreign pressure politically innocent. A serious evaluation must take both equations into account.
The second round of elections on October 25 will require answers that neither foreign support nor sovereignty rhetoric can provide. Lula should explain what a new term in office would change. Bolsonaro, whose political career has been marred by controversy, must explain what closer cooperation would entail. Brazil's partners must recognize that cooperation does not give them the right to dictate Brazil's political direction. The choice belongs to the Brazilians, including the right to disappoint Washington, Tel Aviv or any other capital. Whoever wins will receive temporary authority to govern a sovereign country, not a license to leave its future in someone else's hands.
