The cancellation of the debate that Globo would hold on Thursday (1st) night took away from millions of Brazilians the opportunity to compare the proposals of the candidates for the Presidency of the Republic and to hear the discussion of ideas between them. Jurists and entities representing the press criticized the court's decisions, which were taken hours before the debate and which caused legal uncertainty by changing rules that had already been agreed with the invited parties.
The effort, the look, the talent. Organizing a debate is a job involving many hands and many days. Every gesture, from each professional, and the entire structure set up are at the service of the voter and ideas. The rules are made to encourage the submission of proposals. Brazil was there, waiting for them.
A giant map, in the center of the stage, asked the candidates plans and projects for the five regions of the country – North, Northeast, Central-West, Southeast and South. In addition to the regions, priority themes for the country's future:
the issue of the Amazon - how to preserve nature and promote economic and social development;
security at Brazilian borders - how to combat organized crime;
and highways, railways, waterways and ports - candidates would have to answer which are the most important investments in infrastructure to increase Brazilian exports.
Jurists and press entities criticize court decisions that led to the cancellation of the Globo debate — Photo: Jornal Nacional/ Reproduction
Two blocks would be free themes. But another block would necessarily bring back fundamental issues. For each question, candidates would choose to debate a topic between public debt, recovery of territories, rare earths, artificial intelligence, Brazilian debt, crisis between Powers, relationship with the United States and China, comprehensive education, Unified Health System and the adaptation of cities.
Questions from candidate to candidate, time bank in each round. If any candidate decided not to participate, their place would be empty, with an identification plate. In one of the blocks, the candidates present would have 30 seconds to say the question they would ask the absent candidate.
All rules, times and dynamics were approved and signed by representatives of Lula's and PT's candidacies; Ronaldo Caiado, from PSD; Augusto Cury, from Avante; and Flávio Bolsonaro, from PL, in a face-to-face meeting on September 23rd. These were the parties that would have to be invited by law, as they have at least five representatives in the National Congress. These minutes were filed with the Superior Electoral Court on the 28th.
Two days before the debate, the first change: the president of the TSE, minister Nunes Marques, changed the court's own understanding and determined the mandatory participation of Novo party candidates in all debates. Given this decision, Romeu Zema was invited.
On the eve of the debate, President Lula, a PT candidate for re-election, chose not to participate.
Jurists and press entities criticize court decisions that led to the cancellation of the Globo debate — Photo: Jornal Nacional/ Reproduction
Debate day: everything ready, stage set, countdown. It was then that Globo received two court summons, changing the rules that had been agreed and approved by everyone. At 5:54 pm, Brasília time, minister Estela Aranha, from the TSE, responded to a request from the Lula candidacy coalition. The minister's preliminary decision prohibited the pulpit with Lula's name and the formulation of questions that would be asked of him.
Flávio Bolsonaro, from PL, published his decision not to go to the debate on a social network.
When the first candidates were already beginning to arrive at Estúdios Globo, in Rio de Janeiro, another change occurred: minister Gilmar Mendes, from the STF - Federal Supreme Court, responded to a request from the Solidariedade party and ordered the participation of candidate Renan Santos, from Missão, in the debate. Renan Santos had not been invited because Missão only has one representative in the National Congress, that is, the party does not reach the minimum number of parliamentarians required by law to be invited.
At 9:38 pm, journalist César Tralli, mediator of the debate, announced:
"Globo has a long tradition in organizing electoral debates. Our purpose is to promote the discussion of ideas for Brazil. To offer voters the opportunity to compare projects. Our duty is to promote democracy. But the successive judicial decisions taken moments before the debate cause legal uncertainty and represent an undue interference in the freedom that press vehicles have to organize electoral debates. For this reason, Globo decided to cancel tonight's debate."
Press associations criticized the court's intervention and the change in rules shortly before the debate. In a joint note, the Brazilian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters, the National Association of Magazine Editors and the National Association of Newspapers expressed deep indignation. The entities said that the intervention was an attack on press freedom and concluded by pointing out the biggest harm: the right of citizens to have access to the candidates' proposals.
Jurists and press entities criticize court decisions that led to the cancellation of the Globo debate — Photo: Jornal Nacional/ Reproduction
Legal experts say that debates are a fundamental part of press freedom.
"Journalistic information has many forms. One of them is organizing debates that allow voters to get to know the candidates and get to know their ideas. There is the electoral law that already establishes the rules, in fact, in very detailed terms. Once these rules are met, the press organization has the freedom to organize the debate and it is important that the debates exist. Injecting new rules for a specific debate at the last minute is violating the electoral law system. And this is very bad because it calls into question the function of the legislator himself. So, what is the law for election, if rules are invented for each case, at the last minute? Do the laws have to be respected by everyone, including judges”, says Carlos Ari Sundfeld, professor at FGV Direito SP.
"The issue is how decisions are made, when they are taken. It is not a decision in the court's plenary session bringing this determination. It creates legal uncertainty for the press, it creates legal uncertainty for the candidates as well who, a few hours before, due to an individual, monocratic decision, are forced to rethink their entire strategy and here we are talking about very little time before the election", says Ivar Hartmann, associate professor of Law at Insper.
Political scientist Leandro Gabiati says that, in a campaign with a low rate of discussion of ideas, a purposeful debate would be even more necessary:
"Criticism was prioritized, attack was prioritized and there was no discussion of government platforms, ideas or public policies. The themes are mentioned, but they are mentioned superficially, without giving details. The infinity of subjects that could be addressed, which are of strategic interest to Brazil. Let's mention education. Let's mention science and technology. Let's mention mineral exploration. With the cancellation of the debate, this opportunity ended up being lost."
Ideas circulating freely in an environment created and built for this. Candidates discuss and tens of millions of voters compare. Silence does not match democracy.
“Elections exist for voters to freely say their will about who will lead the destinies, the political decisions and, for them to be able to do this, they need to have information, they need to have access to the debates and, for there to be debates, the law must be complied with and the freedom of the press must be respected, according to the law, to organize the debates”, says Carlos Ari Sundfeld.
