In recent years, Brazil has faced a concerning erosion of democratic principles, prompting growing concerns from citizens, jurists, and observers around the world. What was once considered one of Latin America’s strongest democratic systems now shows signs of increasing authoritarian behavior particularly from institutions that were meant to safeguard democracy. At the heart of this debate stands Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court (STF), a judiciary body that, paradoxically, has become central to multiple constitutional controversies.
Alarming Judicial Abuses by the STF
The role of the judiciary in any democracy is to act as an impartial interpreter of the Constitution, upholding rights and laws while staying within the boundaries of its authority. However, Brazil’s STF has increasingly overstepped these boundaries.
The most glaring issue is the detention of individuals without clear due process what some legal scholars call politically motivated arrests. Journalists, social media influencers, and even opposition politicians have been detained under vague accusations such as “anti-democratic acts,” without conclusive evidence, formal charges, or timely trials. This raises concerns under Article 5, clause LXI of the Brazilian Constitution, which guarantees that no one shall be arrested except by a written and substantiated order from a competent judicial authority.
Moreover, lawyers representing politically targeted clients have faced restrictions, a direct violation of Article 133, which states that “the lawyer is indispensable to the administration of justice.” When lawyers are silenced or threatened, the very foundation of fair trial and defense collapses.
In addition, Article 37 mandates public administration (including the judiciary) must follow principles of legality, impersonality, morality, publicity, and efficiency. Yet the STF has been criticized for acting selectively pursuing one political spectrum while largely ignoring or minimizing actions on the other side.
The Persecution of Jair Bolsonaro and the Questionable “Coup Plan”
The former president Jair Bolsonaro has become a primary target of this new judicial and political order. Investigations have focused on an alleged coup plan, yet no solid or direct evidence has been made public that proves he orchestrated such a scheme. According to Article 5, clause LVII, of the Constitution: “No one shall be considered guilty until the issuance of a final and unappealable criminal conviction.”
Despite this, Bolsonaro has been pre-judged in both media and judicial narratives. Judges who have publicly criticized Bolsonaro in the past, such as Alexandre de Moraes, are leading investigations or overseeing trials against hima clear violation of Article 95, § único, I, which states that judges must maintain impartiality and cannot engage in political activity.
January 8th and the Forgotten Citizens
On January 8, 2023, Brazil experienced what many considered a chaotic and disgraceful day for the Republic. Protesters stormed the Praça dos Três Poderes, damaging public buildings in Brasília. While acts of vandalism must be investigated and punished under the rule of law, the response from Brazilian authorities especially the Supreme Federal Court (STF) has raised serious constitutional and humanitarian concerns.
Thousands of people were detained indiscriminately, including elderly women, men who had no history of violence, and even peaceful demonstrators who were simply in the vicinity. One of the most emblematic cases is that of Débora, a woman who was arrested for spray-painting the base of a statue. Despite the non-violent nature of her action, she was subjected to months of imprisonment in conditions denounced by human rights advocates as cruel and disproportionate.
Violations of Due Process and the Constitution
Several constitutional principles have been disregarded in the mass arrests and trials that followed January 8:
Article 5, LXII and LXIII: Guarantee that every arrested person must be informed of their rights and the reason for their arrest immediately.
Article 5, LXIV: Ensures that arrested individuals have the right to a custody hearing within 24 hours, in front of a judge. Many of those arrested were held for days or even weeks without such hearings.
Article 5, LV: Affirms the right to a full defense, including the ability to present witnesses. Reports have shown that multiple defendants were denied the opportunity to call witnesses or were tried collectively, diluting the principle of individualized justice.
Article 102: Establishes that the STF judges cases involving authorities with privileged jurisdiction (foro privilegiado). Yet the STF is directly judging common citizens, violating the jurisdictional logic of the Brazilian judicial system.
These actions have been justified under the label of “defending democracy,” but ironically, they violate democratic principles. The Brazilian legal system is built on the presumption of innocence, the right to a fair trial, and the prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment.
In Débora’s case, her act although punishable was neither violent nor threatening to the constitutional order. Yet she has become a symbol of selective justice, facing disproportionate consequences while violent criminals in Brazil’s broader context are often released under more lenient conditions. Débora, a married woman and mother of two children, was sentenced by Brazil’s Supreme Federal Court to 16 years in prison for spray-painting a statue.
Ordinary People, Extraordinary Punishment
It is important to emphasize that many of those arrested were ordinary people: housewives, retirees, farmers, churchgoers. Some were photographed clutching nothing more than a Bible. These are not insurgents or terrorists; they are citizens, some misled or confused, who deserve legal fairness, not political vengeance.
Punishment without due process is not justice—it is retaliation. And retaliation from the judicial system sets a dangerous precedent. When courts become instruments of punishment instead of guarantors of rights, tyranny replaces justice.
Lula’s Alignment with Undemocratic Regimes
In the meantime President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s foreign policy choices have further added to the democratic dilemma. His administration has shown public admiration or strategic alliances with authoritarian regimes such as Venezuela, Cuba, China, and even Russia. These are countries where press freedom, civil liberties, and fair elections are routinely undermined.
This alignment contrasts with Brazil’s constitutional foreign policy principles stated in Article 4, which include the “prevalence of human rights” and “defense of peace.” How can a democratic government claim to stand for human rights while aligning itself with leaders known for repressing dissent and violating basic freedoms?
A Message to the World
The greatest threat to democracy is not always a military coup or a dictator in uniform. Sometimes, it is the slow erosion of rights through legal ambiguity, institutional overreach, and the manipulation of public perception.
Too often, people are labeled as “fascists” or “anti-democratic” without a concrete explanation. Ask this: “What did the person actually do to earn that label?” Not liking someone’s tone, posture, or rhetorical style is normal. But when dislike morphs into hatred, and hatred blinds people to facts, it becomes a dangerous tool for manipulation.
It is vital to judge politicians and institutions not by what they say, but by what they do. Beautiful speeches mean nothing if they mask actions that restrict freedom.
Brazil is facing a moment where freedom of speech is being curtailed by those claiming to defend democracy. This is a red flag not just for Brazilians, but for people all over the world. Let Brazil be a cautionary tale: It’s not what someone says that defines their commitment to democracy—it’s what they do.
