Elections in Brazil: which country will the next president inherit? 1:01 Editor’s note: Cristina Moreno is a professor of Political Science at the University of Murcia. She has a doctorate in Government and Public Administration from the Complutense University of Madrid. She is co-director of the Civic Studies and Social Innovation Group (GECIS) at the University of Murcia. Geovanny Vicente-Romero is a lawyer, political scientist and political strategist with experience as an advisor on Public Policy, Governance and Government Communication. He is an Associate Professor of Strategic Communications (ERM) at Columbia University. He is Director of Communications for the Inter-American Institute for Justice and Sustainability (IIJS) in Washington. He is also founder of the Center for Public Policies, Development and Leadership RD (CPDL-RD). Follow him on Twitter: @GeovannyVicentR. The opinions expressed in this article are exclusive to the authors (CNN Spanish) — The “global village” that Marshall McLuhan anticipated has been a reality for years. This context has to do with the development of a completely mediated scenario, whose characteristics correspond to those of the media, that is, with communication in real time, instantaneous, fleeting, focused on the show. The style of communication that we could call “politically incorrect” despises socially accepted behavior patterns that avoid offending ethnic, cultural or religious groups. Former United States President Donald Trump is a clear exponent of this communicative style, which distances itself from the conventional and even boasts of being classified as enfant terrible, by not sticking to what is socially accepted. If we talk about “politically incorrect” communication, in Brazil we find a classic case. Jair Bolsonaro (who obtained 43.2% of the votes in the first round, according to the Superior Electoral Court) is trying to reduce the distance that separates him from Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (48.4%), arguing that this result implied the defeat of the “lies” of the polling firms. Some of them today speak of a technical tie in the voting intention of 49% to 44% (Datafolha) in favor of Lula da Silva, after the 54% to 38% that was announced in September 2022. This interpretation of the results of Bolsonaro is a sample of the messages that contribute to the simplification of the political scene. We are referring to the basic characteristics of the populist story, with dichotomous, Manichaean messages that do not contemplate nuances or middle terms (dynamics of friend or foe) and that, in short, propose extremely simplistic solutions and interpretations for highly complex issues. The cocktail resulting from the simplification of the scenario, on the one hand, and the “politically incorrect” communication, on the other, obviously implies simplification, but also uncertainty, due to the distrust that is planted towards the instruments of analysis of public opinion. In fact, it seems that in Brazil only the science of chance remains. In addition, the politically incorrect communication style, added to the typical characteristics of the populist story, implies certain risks. This is so because, by simplifying by looking for scapegoats and reductionist solutions, without any hesitation in offending minorities, making statements without contrast, spreading hoaxes or fake news, falsely and categorically blaming responsibilities, as well as a long etcetera, while spectacle, you can connect with people who show disenchantment or disaffection with traditional politics. For this reason, crisis situations constitute fertile ground for populist discourse, reinforced by the politically incorrect style of communication, which adapts it more, if possible, to the hyper-mediated context of contemporary democracies. Elections in Brazil: which country will the next president inherit? 1:01 What happened in the first round of the Brazilian elections? The results of the first round were, to a certain extent, unexpected, given that demographic studies predicted a comfortable victory for Lula da Silva, and, although he came first, he was followed a short distance behind by Bolsonaro, who went on to the second round. Most likely, the explanation is somewhat more complex than the one put forward by the latter. In this sense, the serious demoscopic institutes made correct forecasts regarding the result of Lula da Silva, not so with Bolsonaro, but it must be taken into account that the existence of a percentage of undecided voters was pointed out, as well as another of third- and fourth-party voters. candidates willing to change their vote. In addition, surprises in electoral results can sometimes be explained by spiral of silence phenomena, a theory developed by Elisabeth Noëlle-Neumann, according to which, in mediatized societies, the prevailing opinion on any issue can be perceived. In those cases in which one’s own opinion does not coincide with the majority, or with what is socially perceived as desirable, social censorship is feared when exposing it, which is why silence is usually chosen (such as when responding to a survey). The politically incorrect style of Bolsonaro could have caused a phenomenon of this type, as social desirability was not perceived in his speech; with the addition, in this case, that a certain percentage of the undecided may have taken refuge in the ruling party. And in the second round? With these factors operating, how to speculate about the immediate future? It is plausible that the events unfold in a similar way to other famous second rounds, precisely because they can be explained through phenomena of a spiral of silence, such as the French presidential elections of 2002, in which the surprise came because the candidate went to the second round. of the right (Jacque Chirac) and that of the extreme right (Jean-Marie Le Pen), instead of Chirac and Lionel Jospin (Socialist Party), as expected. The polls could not capture on that occasion the intention to vote for Le Pen, surely because he chose not to declare it; giving rise to the paradox that the French left asked for the vote for the candidate of the right (Chirac). Saving the distances, in Brazil the center-right candidate Simone Tebet, who came in third place in the first round (4.2%), surprised by joining the support of Lula da Silva, despite their differences, only with the demand that he form a “plural” government, with men, women, blacks, people with disabilities, having competence, ethics and the will to serve as requirements. Remember that Bolsonaro has historically been criticized for his incendiary comments against minorities and communities in risk of vulnerability, such as indigenous people, LGBTQ groups, black people, etc. Now these groups have an orientation about who to vote for, regardless of their preferences. On the other hand, misinformation seems to predominate in this electoral context. An example is found in a judge’s order that prohibits Lula da Silva from continuing to call Bolsonaro a cannibal after an old video taken out of context. Lula of wanting to close the churches, being forced to send a letter to evangelicals to stop what he alleges is fake news, while he promises to respect freedom of worship. This religious ingredient is important, since the Catholics of the northeastern area of the country represent a bastion inclined to the opposition candidate, against the Protestants of the center-west, who sympathize with the far-right president. In the post-first round presidential debate, Lula da Silva’s strategy has been to attack Bolsonaro’s management of the pandemic and economy, while the latter has reminded him of past corruption cases. This face to face has not left a clear winner and, in fact, since the election the candidates have not taken a fatal false step, but they have not been able to prevail either. Perhaps the greatest challenge facing the current tenant of the Palacio de la Alvorada is fighting against history, because since Brazil regained democracy in 1985, in each election, the candidates who won second place in the first round were unable to reverse it in the second round. second. Opinion | The two unknowns before the elections in Brazil 5:53 In short, politically incorrect communication and the simplified narrative of populism work well in a context of disinformation, without analysis, but, paradoxically, it is very likely that it is precisely the fear of the risks that this entails, that which leads people who did not go to vote in the first round because of confidence in Lula da Silva’s broad victory, to do so now because of the fear of a second Bolsonaro term. Fear is always present in the background of politics, as the most powerful mechanism of mobilization or demobilization.