Alexandre de Moraes and Shaken Democracy in Brazil
By Ana Laura Barbosa*
In recent years, Minister Alexandre de Moraes of the Brazilian Supreme Court has assumed a central position in the public debate. His actions have divided opinions: on one side, there are those who proclaim him a bastion of the defense of democracy in Brazil. On the other, there are those who condemn him as an executioner of freedom of expression.
Moraes' actions in the investigations and actions he reports on have been reactions a to the discursive component of Bolsonaro's method of attacking democracy. After six years, it is possible to point out the merits and weaknesses of his efforts, but it is still not possible to accurately estimate whether they were successful.
Discursively, Bolsonaro questioned the credibility of the judiciary, legislative and the electoral system. And it was not only Bolsonaro. There was a true coordinated network for the propagation of misinformation and anti-democratic speeches on social media, fueling anti-democratic sentiments.
The fight against Bolsonaro and his party's discursive strategy ended up being almost entirely centered on Alexandre de Moraes. As rapporteur of controversial investigations, some of which were initiated ex officio, Moraes was responsible for a series of decisions that ordered the removal people from government positions, demonetization of media channels, and blocking of social media profiles that offended the court or discredited the electoral system and democratic institutions. He ordered arrests or other precautionary measures for individuals suspected of being part of networks spreading disinformation or speeches attacking institutions. His decisions affected everyone from little-known profiles to personalities such as Daniel Silveira, Roberto Jefferson, Sara Winter, and Allan dos Santos.
Moraes' combative role in the investigations may have been important in imposing limits on the network spreading anti-democratic speeches, and, in doing so, protecting democracy. However, assessing with certainty the impact of this action in the defense of democracy requires time, distance from the still very recent political events, and a deeper understanding of the mechanisms behind the coup planning that, by all indications, was underway during the Bolsonaro administration.
The discourses of the populist and authoritarian far right are propagated using very specific techniques, and it is still unclear what the best response would be. On the one hand, restricting these discourses removes them from the public sphere and prevents them from manipulating voters' decision-making. Disinformation, oversimplification, and distortion of information can contaminate the public sphere and prevent voters from making fully informed decisions. Removing this type of content, therefore, could have potentially positive impacts on democracy. On the other hand, this attempt could be costly, as it produces a kind of rebound effect, intensifying populist and authoritarian discourses, which instrumentalize a distorted ideal of freedom of expression and begin to use rhetoric of persecution.
The high cost of controlling these discourses does not only occur in the discursive field. Most of these decisions were made at the cost of weakening procedural guarantees and values relevant to the rule of law, as they occurred in investigations instituted ex officio and in secret, with grounds that do not sufficiently articulate the meaning and scope of freedom of expression or the boundaries between offending the individuals who make up a body and inciting the population to rise up against the body itself. It is true that Bolsonaro was able to develop ways to circumvent institutional constraints that would be responsible for controlling him. Faced with this imbalance in the system, the Supreme Court took on this task, and there are those who claim that excesses, in this context, would be justifiable. Even so, the costs of this action cannot be disregarded.
Democracy, for now, has persevered in Brazil. Bolsonaro was defeated in the elections and declared ineligible to run for office by the Superior Electoral Court until 2031. Individualizing Moraes' share of merit in this result is still impossible to do. However, what can be identified is that this strategy also implied weaknesses and costs to the court. Democracy persevered, but it was severely shaken. There is an ongoing discursive dispute regarding the meaning of democracy and the freedoms that arise from it. And efforts to limit speech on social media have not been able to dispel the authoritarian far right, which continues to find ways to propagate authoritarian speeches with great force in Brazil and around the world.
*Ana Laura Barbosa holds a PhD in State Law from the Faculty of Law of the University of São Paulo, and a bachelor's and master's degree from the same institution. She is a professor of Constitutional Law at the Escola Superior de Propaganda e Marketing (ESPM).
This article was written for issue 169 of the WBO newsletter, dated June 6, 2025. To subscribe and receive free weekly news and analysis like this, simply enter your email in the field provided.
