Eleições no Brasil, EUA e UE: esquerda identitária e direita antissistema desviam o debate do essencial — soberania e redistribuição de riqueza.
Junte-se a nós no Telegram , X e VK.
Escreva para nós: info@strategic-culture.su
As eleições brasileiras têm sido férteis na expressão dos estereótipos eleitorais mais comuns que, na sua esmagadora maioria, são responsáveis pelo acentuado resvalamento para uma política superficial, estéril em debate de soluções efectivas para o futuro colectivo, mas profundamente rica em estética carnavaleira, mais liberal ou mais conservadora, em acesa maledicência e numa tendência exacerbada para o insulto fácil ou até para as mais vis ofensas pessoais.
Nada que não se conheça dos EUA e da forma conservadora, tacanha, acanhada e recuada como aí é discutida a política nacional, em que uma e outra barricada evitam debater os assuntos realmente fracturantes, classificados de «radicais»; nem nada que não se conheça da velha Europa, cuja perda de qualidade da classe política em nada difere, hoje, do que se passa no Brasil, na Argentina ou noutras paragens marcadas pela submissão dos principais dirigentes políticos ao imperialismo anglo-sionista, ao poder imenso da oligarquia ou, em última análise, à necessidade de conciliação das políticas caseiras para com a agenda internacional do imperialismo.
Enquanto olhamos para uma esquerda apanhada, não raras vezes, pelo identitarismo individualista e liberal, assim desviada dos locais de trabalho, do chão de fábrica, dos dramas da exploração, que estão na base dos problemas mais profundos com os quais se debate a maioria da população, constatamos também uma direita que funciona como o outro lado da moeda: ao liberalismo nos costumes de parte da esquerda (a liberal), a direita responde com o conservadorismo; às promessas de justiça social da esquerda (a liberal), a direita responde com mais liberalismo e até “ultraliberalismo”. Uma e outra acabam por falar muito pouco do que interessa realmente, centrando-se muitas vezes em assuntos acessórios, mais ligados à estética do que à essência.
Não obstante, com um olhar atento, podemos sempre desenterrar o que se esconde por trás de um e outro panfletarismo. Uma das mais importantes temáticas em confronto hoje nas sociedades ocidentais – ou ocidentalizadas, como é o caso do Brasil, da América Latina e da Europa Latina – consiste na tensão entre soberania e submissão ao imperialismo anglo-sionista. Se, na Europa – nos casos de Portugal, Espanha ou Itália –, essa tensão é mediada por uma UE já submetida, que tende a funcionar como uma camada protectora das tensões nacionais e uma vez levantada a questão da soberania, a tendência é, das duas uma, ou vê-la como uma extensão da soberania europeia, o que esconde o real problema, ou vê-la como uma tentativa de discussão da saída da UE, o que ainda é visto como um tabu em alargados círculos de um campo ou outro; no Brasil, essa tensão fica mais exposta, uma vez que não existe uma União Americana para mediar as relações externas do país para com os EUA e Israel, os grandes representantes do imperialismo anglo-sionista.
E, neste caso, é interessante verificar que, do lado bolsonarista, de onde se poderia esperar a proposta nacionalista, tal não sucede, ou sucede muito residualmente, pois, mesmo quando sucede, a tentativa é desmascarada pelo excessivo apoio que as redes sociais norte-americanas dão à candidatura de Bolsonaro, ou pelas constantes ingerências de Trump e dos seus apaniguados no processo eleitoral brasileiro. Por muito que a direita quisesse mostrar-se como defensora da nação e da sua independência, o efusivo apoio dos EUA à candidatura em causa faria cair a máscara, pois os EUA – e Israel – nunca apoiariam com tanta veemência e de forma tão expressa quem não lhes fosse dócil. A omissão de Lula nos comandos algorítmicos de Silicon Valey acaba por denunciar qual dos dois candidatos é mais dócil aos interesses dos EUA.
Já do lado de Lula da Silva, aí sim, têm surgido as propostas mais demarcadas em matéria de defesa da soberania, mesmo que alguma dessa intensidade possa depois colidir com os ditames pragmáticos da realpolitik, ditados pela necessidade de conciliar com um centrão marcadamente pró-imperialista. De qualquer das formas, esta linha demarcadora existe, e parece-me pouco crível que alguém, no pleno uso das suas faculdades mentais, possa escolher um protegido de Trump para a defesa dos interesses soberanos do Brasil, em vez de um experiente conciliador, mesmo que não revolucionário.
Sabendo da importância que esta questão tem, depois, para a gestão e utilização soberana dos recursos endógenos e a sua afectação a um plano de desenvolvimento independente, parece-me de difícil defesa a escolha de Bolsonaro, no caso de pesar, nessa escolha, a questão soberana. Tal como na UE, também não é na direita que os soberanistas têm encontrado as melhores práticas, talvez com excepção de Viktor Orbán — que governou a Hungria durante dezasseis anos, até às eleições de abril de 2026 —, mas mais por necessidade de alinhamento com a Rússia e a China, em consequência das escolhas da UE em matéria energética e industrial, do que por necessidade de construção de um projecto de nação realmente soberano. Aliás, se mais provas fossem necessárias, tivemos o total alinhamento de Orbán com o sionismo para percebermos que o desencontro para com a UE era apenas tático, e não uma questão de fundo ou de defesa da soberania nacional. Nem por um momento Orbán renunciou à NATO nem se afastou de Israel e do sionismo — factores que usou como plataformas de sustentação contra a burocracia de Bruxelas. A submissão a Trump, essa, também foi explícita e verbalizada com o fulgor de quem via nele “um enviado de deus”!
Já no caso de Meloni, Babis e outros, a questão é a mesma: muita conversa, mas, no final, o mesmo alinhamento, o que deixa antever para onde virão a virar os partidos como a AfD. Perante as questões fundamentais, também estas alinharão, ou pela submissão a Bruxelas, ou pela submissão directa ao sionismo e ao imperialismo dos EUA. Outros, como Meloni, conseguem fazer um meio-caminho que, no final, tem as mesmas consequências sociais. No que conta realmente, os jovens continuam a deparar-se com o desemprego, a não conseguir casa, as infraestruturas a degradar-se, os direitos laborais sob ataque cerrado e os salários em desvalorização acelerada face ao aumento brutal do custo de vida. Não existe um local onde esta «nova direita» esteja implantada e sentada nas cadeiras do poder, onde isto não se passe.
Daí que subsista um outro paralelo importante entre as eleições brasileiras e o que se passa na Europa e no Ocidente em geral: quer no Brasil, quer nos EUA, quer na Europa, esta «nova direita» utiliza também a agenda identitária como linha divisória em relação à esquerda. Supostamente, a «esquerda» – liberal, acrescento eu – seria responsável por uma decadência dos costumes e dos valores culturais e religiosos, pela decadência social e moral dos defensores desta deriva «wokista».
Ora, esta demarcação tem funcionado como justificação para muitos que, tendo-se apresentado como críticos do sionismo, defensores da multipolaridade, anti-imperialistas e defensores das soberanias do Sul Global, vêm agora usar este suposto «wokismo» da esquerda para justificar a eleição de um representante da submissão ao imperialismo como Bolsonaro. Esta demarcação tem um problema: mais «wokista» do que o «wokista» é aquele que faz do wokismo a coisa mais importante da política, seja quando se está a favor, seja quando se está contra.
À esquerda, muitos não são capazes de identificar nas pautas excessivamente identitárias uma agenda individualista, fraccionária e fragmentadora das classes trabalhadoras, com origem nos próprios EUA, cujos serviços de manipulação de massas transformaram o ser «woke» (alerta para as injustiças sociais) numa espécie de panfletarismo identitário que extraiu ao movimento «woke» a dimensão classista e de redistribuição justa da riqueza que possuía e lhe deu uma panóplia de identidades em troca, transformando a preocupação com a igualdade, a justiça social e a liberdade – uma preocupação materialista e universalista – numa preocupação tribalista, individualista e, acima de tudo, desconectada da dimensão material, ou seja, da dimensão da justa redistribuição da riqueza produzida pelo trabalho.
Mas, à direita, quando se utiliza essa deriva tribalista e individualista como linha divisora, nega-se também o que distingue, de facto, a esquerda da direita. É que na matriz histórica que distingue esquerda de direita está a riqueza: quem a domina e como é repartida. De um lado, quem defende que a propriedade e a riqueza não devem ser a medida da liberdade e da iniciativa política e que todos os seres humanos devem ter direito a uma vida digna (universalismo) e, do outro, à direita, a plutocracia fisiocrática, ou seja, a ideia de que a liberdade e a capacidade de intervenção política devem medir-se pela riqueza que se tem. Daí que os sufrágios liberais assentassem numa lógica censo-censitária – ou seja, identitária –, em que o que contava era a riqueza que se tinha, se era homem e se sabia ler e escrever, e não fosse a luta, nomeadamente a das mulheres sufragistas, a conseguir alcançar o que hoje designamos por «sufrágio universal» e ainda estaríamos assim. Julgo que também as terão acusado de «wokistas», nos termos em voga na altura!
Assim, de lá para cá, ou seja, desde o momento fundador da dicotomia «esquerda–direita» da Revolução Francesa, a direita se empenha mais do lado da conservação da propriedade nas mãos de quem a tem, e a esquerda mais do lado da democracia real, da democracia económica, social e cultural, negando a ideia de que os ricos tenham de permanecer ricos e que os pobres tenham de permanecer pobres — em jeito de tradução, o que chamamos de progressismo universalista, por oposição ao progressismo individualista, o qual tende sobretudo para as questões da identidade individual.
Assim, quando esta direita embarca na lógica antiwokista, fazendo desta agenda o aspecto mais importante da discussão política, como se o que importasse realmente não fossem as coisas que nos permitem viver, sustentar, alimentar e fruir o nosso corpo e espírito, esta direita fá-lo apenas com uma intenção: desviar a atenção para uma questão superficial, para que nas propostas em discussão não entre o que lhe é mais caro: a redistribuição justa da riqueza e a democracia económica, social e cultural. Assim, o que mais lhe importa permanece indiscutível e as eleições transformam-se num carnaval de bandeirinhas do contra e a favor. Quem escolhe onde vota por causa do wokismo de outro é tão wokista quanto ele.
Mas não se ficam por aqui as semelhanças. Outra é a questão da segurança e do combate ao crime: à direita, propaga-se a ideia de que o crime se combate com violência brutal; à esquerda, defende-se que, enquanto houver pobreza, não será possível erradicar o crime. Ora, não é preciso ser muito inteligente para perceber que a primeira proposta falha nos locais onde mais se dela fala: nos EUA. Nenhum país tem mais prisioneiros comuns — também poucos terão mais prisioneiros políticos —, nenhum país gasta tanto em suposto combate ao crime, nenhum país desenvolvido tem tanto crime. Porque, nos EUA, os viveiros do crime comum, os guetos negros e latinos, onde vivem populações desesperadas, desprovidas de condições básicas de emprego, de educação e de serviços públicos essenciais, continuam sobrelotados e cada vez mais empobrecidos. Ora, esse é apenas o crime do desesperado, o que surge na televisão.
Outra forma de crime e que também constitui um paralelo na agenda direita/esquerda, é a questão da corrupção. Se esta «nova direita» faz bandeira da corrupção e a esquerda pouco fala dela, também é verdade que, quando eleita, esta «nova direita» faz tudo menos acabar com a corrupção. Não é preciso ir mais longe do que Trump para constatarmos um caso de corrupção empedernida. E quem do bolsonarismo esperava o fim da corrupção também ficou a praguejar no deserto: o governo Bolsonaro foi, ele próprio, um antro de corrupção. Talvez se devesse começar por discutir que, para acabar com a corrupção, é preciso acabar com o que a origina: a imensa disparidade na distribuição da riqueza, que faz com que uns possam usar o seu imenso poder económico para obter do poder político o que lhes falta em legitimidade eleitoral. Este crime, o de colarinho branco, sendo até mais insidioso e originando as causas profundas do outro, não surge tão amiúde nas televisões.
Na imigração temos, talvez, a única das grandes diferenças entre as eleições na América Latina, no Brasil e nos países do capitalismo avançado. Mas a imigração surge também como uma forma de identitarismo superficial da direita. Quanto mais a «nova direita» fala de «excesso de imigração», mais esquece que quem emprega esses imigrantes são os mesmos que a financiam e apoiam, que os imigrantes vêm trabalhar nos sectores económicos com os salários mais baixos, explorados pelos patrões mais retrógrados e conservadores — base social da direita radical —, e que o patronato só recorre à imigração como último recurso, porque a sua agenda antilaboral fez com que os trabalhadores não tenham hoje condições para projectar um futuro com estabilidade, porque os jovens, vítimas da transformação da habitação em especulação imobiliária, deixaram de poder programar um futuro em família e porque os pais e as mães, vítimas dos horários desregulados impostos pelo patronato e consagrados em lei pela direita, não têm tempo para a sua família.
O mais grave é que, quanto mais negam as condições materiais necessárias, mais dizem defender a família e os respectivos valores. Uma clara mostra de hipocrisia e cinismo, que nega as causas profundas do problema — um problema que afecta todo o Ocidente. É mais fácil, como têm feito, negar que a crise da natalidade está intrinsecamente ligada ao sistema vigente. Sabem onde não havia crise da natalidade? Nos países socialistas do leste. Países industrializados, letrados e bem alimentados, que duplicaram as suas populações em 70 anos. Hoje, tomados pelo capitalismo, encontram-se na lenga-lenga dos países do capitalismo avançado. Daí não sairão até que mudem as características fundamentais de um sistema económico que não apenas não dá tempo à mulher para ter filhos, como destrói a coesão familiar com a desregulação do trabalho e, consequentemente, da vida.
Ora, o que é mais interessante deste debate político é que os que há uns anos, os que diziam não haver direita e esquerda, que os políticos eram todos iguais, são agora os que vêm dizer que a salvação está nesta «nova direita» e são os que se acirram quando lhes dizemos que esta «nova direita» nada tem de «nova» e que, ao invés, tresanda a fascismo clássico.
Nunca são fascistas, mas submetem-se ao sionismo e ao império anglo-sionista; não são fascistas, mas usam da demagogia e do discurso fácil usados pelo fascismo clássico; não são fascistas, mas usam das bandeiras de massas como o fez o fascismo clássico; não são fascistas, mas usam a religião e a suposta degradação dos costumes para desviar as atenções do essencial, como o fez o fascismo clássico; não são fascistas, mas chegados ao poder privatizam, atacam direitos laborais e fecham serviços públicos essenciais, como fez o fascismo clássico; não são fascistas, mas atacam o conhecimento, desvalorizam o estudo e o empenho individual, como fazia o fascismo clássico; não são fascistas, mas desconsideram a experiência política, o percurso individual e colectivo, como fazia o fascismo clássico, para desconsiderar as instituições; não são fascistas, mas assumem um discurso racialista, xenófobo, supremacista e ultra-individualista, como fazia o fascismo clássico; não são fascistas, mas são todos anticomunistas, antissocialistas e contrários ao progresso social, como era o fascismo clássico; não são fascistas, mas são apoiados pela oligarquia e pelo patronato mais retrógrado, bem como pelo imperialismo, como era o fascismo clássico.
Não são fascistas, mas cheiram, voam, cantam e vociferam como os fascistas…
Chamem-lhe o que quiserem, mas uns «anos 30» do século XXI, armados de IA e de redes sociais? Não, obrigado! Não podemos esperar diferente de quem tem os mesmos patrões e quer mandar nos mesmos empregados…
Espero que, depois, me poupem ao adágio repetitivo do «fomos enganados».
FONTES E NOTAS DE VERIFICAÇÃO
Encarceramento nos EUA — os EUA têm a maior população prisional do mundo (cerca de 2 milhões de pessoas) e a maior taxa de encarceramento de qualquer democracia; em taxa por habitante, apenas El Salvador, Cuba e Turquemenistão a superam (World Prison Brief / Prison Policy Initiative, 2026). https://eji.org/news/u-s-remains-world-leader-in-number-of-people-incarcerated/
Jair Bolsonaro — condenado pelo Supremo Tribunal Federal a 27 anos e 3 meses de prisão (11 de setembro de 2025) por tentativa de golpe de Estado, organização criminosa armada e abolição violenta do Estado democrático de direito; cumpre pena desde 25 de novembro de 2025. https://apublica.org/especial/o-julgamento-de-jair-bolsonaro/ ; https://checamos.afp.com/doc.afp.com.A2V88ZQ
Donald Trump — condenado em maio de 2024 por 34 crimes de falsificação de registos comerciais; em janeiro de 2025 foi-lhe aplicada uma liberdade incondicional (sem pena de prisão nem multa), com recursos ainda pendentes em 2026. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c4g3m95ykzko ; https://www.axios.com/2026/08/28/trump-hush-money-conviction-appeal
Viktor Orbán — a Hungria é membro da NATO e Orbán foi aliado próximo de Netanyahu e de Israel; nas eleições de abril de 2026, Péter Magyar pôs fim a 16 anos de governo de Orbán. https://apnews.com/article/hungary-israel-euro-2024-soccer-1514e137b54b18a1fed8be8b6cd89b19 ; https://www.ynetnews.com/article/hjef3yqnbx
Sufrágio — em Portugal, o voto censitário só foi extinto em 1968; as mulheres obtiveram um direito de voto limitado em 1931 e a igualdade plena apenas com a Constituição de 1976. https://www.europeana.eu/pt/stories/votes-for-women ; https://arquivomunicipal.lisboa.pt/fileadmin/arquivo_municipal/difusao/publicacoes/cadernos/Cad04.pdf
Origem do termo «woke» — inglês afro-americano, com registos desde os anos 1920–1940, popularizado a partir de 2014 pelo movimento Black Lives Matter. https://www.merriam-webster.com/wordplay/woke-meaning-origin ; https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2025-09-30/how-woke-went-from-an-expression-in-black-culture-to-a-conservative-criticism
Origem dos termos «esquerda» e «direita» — disposição dos deputados na Assembleia Nacional Constituinte francesa, em 1789. https://observador.pt/opiniao/a-grande-dicotomia-o-que-ainda-separa-a-esquerda-da-direita/
Criminalidade — a taxa de homicídios dos EUA (≈6,4 por 100 mil habitantes) é muito superior à dos restantes países desenvolvidos, mas inferior à do Brasil (≈22–23) ou do México (≈25); por essa razão, o texto original «nenhum país tem tanto crime» foi ajustado para «nenhum país desenvolvido tem tanto crime». https://www.unodc.org/documents/data-and-analysis/gsh/2023/GSH_2023_LAC_web.pdf
By Tings Chak
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
On Oct. 25, Brazilians will return to the polls to choose between President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in an attempted coup.
The first round gave Flávio 47.03 percent of valid votes against Lula’s 45.16 percent, revealing the enduring strength of the far right four years after its electoral defeat.
The runoff takes place as President Donald Trump seeks to restore U.S. domination over Latin America, with Brazil emerging as a consequential battleground in Washington’s campaign to contain China’s growing relations with the region.
Over the past two decades, Brazil and China have built a political partnership that has expanded the space for independent action among countries of the Global South. Under Lula and China’s President Xi Jinping, this relationship has deepened through cooperation in industrial development, infrastructure, science and technology.
The election will determine whether this project advances or Brazil’s international orientation is subordinated to Washington’s renewed Monroe Doctrine as part of the continent’s rightward shift.
Since Lula’s return to the presidency in 2023, the two governments have connected Chinese cooperation with Brazil’s development programmes, including Nova Indústria Brasil, the Growth Acceleration Programme (PAC) and the Ecological Transformation Plan. Lula’s May 2025 visit to Beijing produced 36 agreements covering infrastructure, finance, artificial intelligence, public health and industrial cooperation.
Behind these agreements is a long-standing challenge: overcoming Brazil’s dependent position in the international division of labour, where commodity exports continue to outweigh advanced industrial and technological development.
This cooperation has also reached Brazilian popular movements. Through the International Association for Popular Cooperation (Baobab), Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST) and other organisations have worked with Chinese institutions on agricultural mechanisation, bioinputs and digital technologies for family farming.
These initiatives include the Digital Family Farming and Agroecology Laboratoryand IARAA, an artificial intelligence project for agroecology and agrarian reform developed by Brazilian popular movements using Chinese open-source models.
In a countryside marked by extreme concentrations of land, machinery and capital, such cooperation offers new tools to peasant organisations fighting for agrarian reform and the production of healthy food.
Brazil’s relationship with China also reveals the different class interests at work in the country, with contradictions particularly visible in the countryside.
Massive exports of soybeans, meat and minerals have continued under both Bolsonaro and Lula, but their governments have pursued very different political relationships with Beijing.
While Jair Bolsonaro attacked China and aligned himself with Washington, Lula has sought to deepen strategic cooperation, including in industrial development, technology and agrarian reform.
Flávio Bolsonaro now promises an “economically pragmatic” relationship with China while cultivating close ties with Trump. For sectors of Brazil’s ruling classes that profit from commodity exports, continuing to sell to China while embracing Washington’s political agenda presents little contradiction. For Brazil’s efforts to rebuild its industry and develop technological sovereignty, the consequences are far greater.
Return of the Monroe Doctrine
Bolsonaro with Trump in the White House on May 26. (White House/Donald Trump/Truth Social/Wikimedia Commons/Public Domain)
Washington’s ambitions were made explicit in its December 2025 National Security Strategy, which announced a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, seeking to restore U.S. pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere and deny outside powers control over strategic resources and infrastructure.
Five days later, China published its third Latin America policy paper, reaffirming sovereignty, non-interference, regional integration, technological cooperation and support for the region as a Zone of Peace. The two documents reveal fundamentally different approaches to the political future of the continent.
Brazil’s position is decisive. As Latin America’s largest economy, a founding BRICS member and a leading participant in Mercosur, it possesses industrial, scientific and political capacities that could strengthen independent development across Latin America and beyond.
The emergence of a new technological era makes this struggle particularly consequential. Brazil is among the few countries of the Global South capable of pursuing digital and technological sovereignty that could benefit its neighbours and parts of Africa.
Its roughly 23 percent share of global rare earth reserves is an important starting point, but control over minerals alone is insufficient. The greater challenge is developing the capacity to process them, manufacture advanced components and build the digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence systems and technologies that will shape future production.
Flávio has made his orientation clear. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the United States in March, he offered Brazil as the “solution” to Washington’s dependence on China for critical minerals, explicitly linking rare earths to artificial intelligence and U.S. military superiority.
Chinese economic reporting has also described proposals from his team to exclude China from rare-earth supply chains. Rather than using Brazil’s resources to develop its own industrial and technological capacities, this agenda would place them at the service of U.S. technological and military power.
The same political orientation extends to digital sovereignty. In July, Flávio’s campaign submitted proposals to U.S. trade authorities that included preventing Brazil’s Pix payment system from connecting to non-Western international payment networks and loosening commitments within Mercosur.
These proposals converge with a wider U.S. campaign involving tariffs, digital regulation, strategic minerals and attempts to influence Brazil’s electoral process.
Meanwhile, Washington’s January bombing on Venezuela and kidnapping of President Nicolás Maduro and First Lady Cilia Flores demonstrated how far it is prepared to go to impose its will on the continent.
BRICS & the Struggle for Independent Foreign Policy
A BRICS plenary session on Strengthening Multilateralism, Economic and Financial Affairs and Artificial Intelligence in Rio de Janeiro in July 2025. (Palácio do Planalto /Flickr/ CC0/Wikimedia Commons)
Brazil, particularly under Lula, has helped build institutions through which countries of the Global South can reduce their dependence on Western-dominated structures.
At the July 2025 BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, the group advanced cooperation on development finance, local-currency transactions, and international institutional reform.
The New Development Bank, headed by former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, is an important expression of this effort.
The BRICS cannot automatically overcome economic dependency or guarantee sovereignty for working people. Yet its expansion offers greater room for independent development, provided that participating governments have the political commitment to use these possibilities.
Brazil’s history reveals how difficult that independence has been to defend. In 1961, Vice President João Goulart became the first high-ranking representative of a Latin American government to visit the People’s Republic of China, meeting Mao Zedong when revolutionary China remained diplomatically isolated and subjected to U.S. sanctions. Three years later, Goulart was overthrown in a U.S.-backed civil-military coup that inaugurated a 21-year dictatorship.
The early history of China–Brazil friendship was inseparable from struggles over national sovereignty, agrarian reform and the forces determined to suppress them.
The international material conditions for South–South cooperation are considerably more favourable today, but political direction remains decisive.
Former President Jair Bolsonaro hosted the 2019 BRICS summit in Brasília while pursuing close alignment with Washington. A government can weaken institutions from within by abandoning the commitments that give them political substance.
Jair Bolsonaro in 2018. (Jeso Carneiro/ Flickr/ CC BY-NC 2.0)
The far right’s resurgence also reflects the enduring power of Brazil’s own ruling classes. Bolsonarismo has a domestic base among sections of agribusiness, finance, the security apparatus, militias, conservative religious networks and major media.
These forces, whose electoral and institutional advances have continued, were strengthened by the 2016 parliamentary coup against Dilma Rousseff and the judicial persecution of Lula. They possess their own organisations, material interests and sources of power, which do not disappear when an election is lost. Their economic dependence on Chinese markets has not prevented their support for Washington’s political agenda.
Beyond the Election
Beijing has followed the Brazilian election closely, reflecting the importance of the political relationship built between Lula and Xi over years of cooperation.
In July, Xi reaffirmed China’s support for Brazil against external interference during a conversation with Lula, which also covered cooperation in artificial intelligence, satellites, mineral processing and relations between China and Mercosur.
In September, Foreign Minister Wang Yi received Lula’s adviser and former foreign minister Celso Amorim in Beijing, reaffirming the bilateral strategic partnership.
China’s principle of non-interference means that the choice of Brazil’s government belongs to the Brazilian people, but Beijing’s diplomatic restraint should not be confused with an absence of political interests or an assumption that all governments would pursue the same relationship. Chinese analysts have described the possible outlook under Flávio as one of “cold politics, hot economics”: commodity trade would likely continue, but the political relationship and cooperation in strategic sectors could deteriorate. The experience of Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency has already shown the limits of commercial interests in sustaining a broader political partnership.
For the Brazilian people, the consequences extend well beyond foreign policy. The election will also shape the struggles over labour rights, public services, agrarian reform and the defence of democratic space.
Brazil’s renewed role in South–South cooperation under Lula has opened possibilities for a development project that responds to the needs of its working people, but realising those possibilities depends on the political and social forces capable of carrying it forward.
The Brazilian people have fought through dictatorship, neoliberal restructuring, parliamentary coups and the rise of the far right to defend their political and social gains.
This election is another moment in that longer struggle, now unfolding amid renewed U.S. imperial intervention and a transformation of the world’s technological foundations. The future of China–Brazil cooperation will depend on the capacity of organised popular forces to build a sovereign national project and turn international cooperation into lasting changes in people’s lives.
Original article: consortiumnews.com
On October 25, Brazilians will return to the polls to choose between President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Flávio Bolsonaro, son of former president Jair Bolsonaro, who was sentenced to 27 years in prison for his role in an attempted coup. The first round gave Flávio 47% of valid votes against Lula’s 45%, revealing the enduring strength of the far right four years after its electoral defeat. The runoff takes place as Donald Trump seeks to restore US domination over Latin America, with Brazil emerging as a consequential battleground in Washington’s campaign to contain China’s growing relations with the region.
Over the past two decades, Brazil and China have built a political partnership that has expanded the space for independent action among countries of the Global South. Under Lula and Xi Jinping, this relationship has deepened through cooperation in industrial development, infrastructure, science, and technology. The election will determine whether this project advances or Brazil’s international orientation is subordinated to Washington’s renewed Monroe Doctrine as part of the continent’s rightward shift.
Since Lula’s return to the presidency in 2023, the two governments have connected Chinese cooperation with Brazil’s development programs, including Nova Indústria Brasil, the Growth Acceleration Program (PAC), and the Ecological Transformation Plan. Lula’s May 2025 visit to Beijing produced 36 agreements covering infrastructure, finance, artificial intelligence, public health, and industrial cooperation. Behind these agreements is a long-standing challenge: overcoming Brazil’s dependent position in the international division of labor, where commodity exports continue to outweigh advanced industrial and technological development.
This cooperation has also reached Brazilian popular movements. Through the International Association for Popular Cooperation (Baobab), Brazil’s Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST) and other organizations have worked with Chinese institutions on agricultural mechanization, bioinputs, and digital technologies for family farming. These initiatives include the Digital Family Farming and Agroecology Laboratory and IARAA, an artificial intelligence project for agroecology and agrarian reform developed by Brazilian popular movements using Chinese open-source models. In a countryside marked by extreme concentrations of land, machinery, and capital, such cooperation offers new tools to peasant organizations fighting for agrarian reform and the production of healthy food.
Brazil’s relationship with China also reveals the different class interests at work in the country, with contradictions particularly visible in the countryside. Massive exports of soybeans, meat, and minerals have continued under both Bolsonaro and Lula, but their governments have pursued very different political relationships with Beijing. While Jair Bolsonaro attacked China and aligned himself with Washington, Lula has sought to deepen strategic cooperation, including in industrial development, technology, and agrarian reform. Flávio Bolsonaro now promises an “economically pragmatic” relationship with China while cultivating close ties with Trump. For sectors of Brazil’s ruling classes that profit from commodity exports, continuing to sell to China while embracing Washington’s political agenda presents little contradiction. For Brazil’s efforts to rebuild its industry and develop technological sovereignty, the consequences are far greater.
Washington’s ambitions were made explicit in its November 2025 National Security Strategy, which announced a “Trump Corollary” to the Monroe Doctrine, seeking to restore US pre-eminence in the Western Hemisphere and deny outside powers control over strategic resources and infrastructure. Five days later, China published its third Latin America policy paper, reaffirming sovereignty, non-interference, regional integration, technological cooperation, and support for the region as a Zone of Peace. The two documents reveal fundamentally different approaches to the political future of the continent.
Brazil’s position is decisive. As Latin America’s largest economy, a founding BRICS member, and a leading participant in Mercosur, it possesses industrial, scientific, and political capacities that could strengthen independent development across Latin America and beyond.
The emergence of a new technological era makes this struggle particularly consequential. Brazil is among the few countries of the Global South capable of pursuing digital and technological sovereignty that could benefit its neighbors and parts of Africa. Its roughly 23% share of global rare earth reserves is an important starting point, but control over minerals alone is insufficient. The greater challenge is developing the capacity to process them, manufacture advanced components, and build the digital infrastructure, artificial intelligence systems, and technologies that will shape future production.
Flávio has made his orientation clear. Speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in the United States in March 2026, he offered Brazil as the “solution” to Washington’s dependence on China for critical minerals, explicitly linking rare earths to artificial intelligence and US military superiority. Chinese economic reporting has also described proposals from his team to exclude China from rare-earth supply chains. Rather than using Brazil’s resources to develop its own industrial and technological capacities, this agenda would place them at the service of US technological and military power.
The same political orientation extends to digital sovereignty. In July 2026, Flávio’s campaign submitted proposals to US trade authorities that included preventing Brazil’s Pix payment system from connecting to non-Western international payment networks and loosening commitments within Mercosur. These proposals converge with a wider US campaign involving tariffs, digital regulation, strategic minerals, and attempts to influence Brazil’s electoral process. Meanwhile, Washington’s January 2026 bombing on Venezuela and kidnapping of Nicolás Maduro and Cilia Flores demonstrated how far it is prepared to go to impose its will on the continent.
Brazil, particularly under Lula, has helped build institutions through which countries of the Global South can reduce their dependence on Western-dominated structures. At the July 2025 BRICS summit in Rio de Janeiro, the group advanced cooperation on development finance, local-currency transactions, and international institutional reform. The New Development Bank, headed by former Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff, is an important expression of this effort.
The BRICS cannot automatically overcome economic dependency or guarantee sovereignty for working people. Yet its expansion offers greater room for independent development, provided that participating governments have the political commitment to use these possibilities.
Brazil’s history reveals how difficult that independence has been to defend. In 1961, vice-president João Goulart became the first high-ranking representative of a Latin American government to visit the People’s Republic of China, meeting Mao Zedong when revolutionary China remained diplomatically isolated and subjected to US sanctions. Three years later, Goulart was overthrown in a US-backed civil-military coup that inaugurated a 21-year dictatorship. The early history of China–Brazil friendship was inseparable from struggles over national sovereignty, agrarian reform, and the forces determined to suppress them.
The international material conditions for South–South cooperation are considerably more favorable today, but political direction remains decisive. Jair Bolsonaro hosted the 2019 BRICS summit in Brasília while pursuing close alignment with Washington. A government can weaken institutions from within by abandoning the commitments that give them political substance.
The far right’s resurgence also reflects the enduring power of Brazil’s own ruling classes. Bolsonarismo has a domestic base among sections of agribusiness, finance, the security apparatus, militias, conservative religious networks, and major media. These forces, whose electoral and institutional advances have continued, were strengthened by the 2016 parliamentary coup against Dilma Rousseff and the judicial persecution of Lula. They possess their own organizations, material interests, and sources of power, which do not disappear when an election is lost. Their economic dependence on Chinese markets has not prevented their support for Washington’s political agenda.
Beijing has followed the Brazilian election closely, reflecting the importance of the political relationship built between Lula and Xi over years of cooperation. In July, Xi reaffirmed China’s support for Brazil against external interference during a conversation with Lula, which also covered cooperation in artificial intelligence, satellites, mineral processing, and relations between China and Mercosur. In September, Foreign Minister Wang Yi received Lula’s adviser and former foreign minister Celso Amorim in Beijing, reaffirming the bilateral strategic partnership.
China’s principle of non-interference means that the choice of Brazil’s government belongs to the Brazilian people, but Beijing’s diplomatic restraint should not be confused with an absence of political interests or an assumption that all governments would pursue the same relationship. Chinese analysts have described the possible outlook under Flávio as one of “cold politics, hot economics”: commodity trade would likely continue, but the political relationship and cooperation in strategic sectors could deteriorate. The experience of Jair Bolsonaro’s presidency has already shown the limits of commercial interests in sustaining a broader political partnership.
For the Brazilian people, the consequences extend well beyond foreign policy. The election will also shape the struggles over labor rights, public services, agrarian reform, and the defence of democratic space. Brazil’s renewed role in South–South cooperation under Lula has opened possibilities for a development project that responds to the needs of its working people, but realizing those possibilities depends on the political and social forces capable of carrying it forward.
The Brazilian people have fought through dictatorship, neoliberal restructuring, parliamentary coups, and the rise of the far right to defend their political and social gains. This election is another moment in that longer struggle, now unfolding amid renewed US imperial intervention and a transformation of the world’s technological foundations. The future of China–Brazil cooperation will depend on the capacity of organized popular forces to build a sovereign national project and turn international cooperation into lasting changes in people’s lives.
Tings Chak 翟庭君 is the Asia Co-Coordinator of Tricontinental: Institute for Social Researchand an editor of the international edition of Wenhua Zongheng: A Journal of Contemporary Chinese Thought.
On October 4, over 150 million Brazilians were called to the polls to elect their president, deputies, and governors, and to replace the majority of senators. The elections, for many, brought a major surprise. Although polls indicated a lead for the incumbent president, progressive Luiz Inácio “Lula” da Silva, far-right Senator Flávio Bolsonaro clinched first place. Flávio is the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro who is currently serving a 27-year sentence for his involvement in an attempted coup against Lula in 2022.
According to the final tally, Bolsonaro received 47.03% of the vote (56 million votes) while Lula received 45.16%, nearly 54 million votes. Thus, Bolsonaro’s lead amounts to just over 2 million votes. In third place is Augusto Cury, with 2.89%. He is followed by Renan Santos and Ronaldo Caiado, with 2.24% and 2.18%, respectively. The remaining candidates received less than 0.3%.
A look at how the different regions of the country voted, a clear political divide between the north and the south of the country becomes apparent. The north (including states such as Amazonas, Pará, Amapá, Maranhão, Piauí, Bahia, Sergipe, Alagoas, Pernambuco, Paraíba, and Rio Grande do Norte) supported the continued presence of the state and the welfare policies proposed by Lula.
For its part, including the northern state of Roraima, the south of the country clearly backed Bolsonaro’s neoliberal and pro-Trump agenda: Acre, Rondônia, Mato Grosso, Tocantins, Goiás, Mato Grosso do Sul, Minas Gerais, Espírito Santo, Rio de Janeiro, Paraná, Santa Catarina, and Rio Grande do Sul voted for Bolsonaro.
On his X account, the far-right senator from the Liberal Party (PL) said: “Together, we’re going to build a new Brazil. A Brazil of prosperity! Tomorrow, you’ll stand before the ballot box and choose the future of our country, the future of our children, of this generation and the next. Change is in your hands. Brazil is going to win!”
For his part, the president and candidate of the Workers’ Party (PT) said: “The result is often unexpected. You never get everything you want.” Yet, Lula, who has fought dozens of political battles, said: “[The runoff] is the time to show the true picture of Brazil today and of the Brazil we want.”
To secure victory, Bolsonaro hopes to win over the votes of the candidates who finished behind the finalists – the majority of whom undoubtedly hold right-wing ideologies. Lula, however, can still turn the situation around if he manages to form the right alliances and win over voters who cast invalid ballots (about 3%), as well as those who abstained, who account for 21.08% of the total electorate.
And while Lula has expressed optimism about the possibility of turning the tide in the presidential runoff to be held on October 25, the political reality in Brazil has changed. Bolsonaro’s PL party has managed to double its number of senators: it won 19 of the 54 seats up for election out of a total of 81 senators. Among them, immediate family members of the former president, such as Michelle Bolsonaro and Carlos Bolsonaro, won seats. In total, the PL will hold more than a third of the Senate, while Lula’s PT will hold 9.
This institution is particularly important because it approves or rejects the judges of the Federal Supreme Court (the country’s highest court) who are nominated by the president. This gives Bolsonaro significant ideological leverage, as he claims his father is being held in custody due to a conspiracy between political powers and a biased judicial system.
In the elections for the Chamber of Deputies, which has 513 seats, the Bolsonaro camp also secured a significant victory. With 100% of the votes counted, the PL won 121 seats, while the Brazil of Hope Federation coalition (which includes Lula’s PT, the Green Party, and the Communist Party) won 88 seats.
However, due to the method of seat allocation, Brazil favors a Chamber of Deputies with representation from many political forces. This is how the Progressive Union secured 87 seats, the Social Democratic Party 43, the Republicans 41, the Brazilian Democratic Movement 36, Podemos 27, the PSOL 15, as well as the Brazilian Socialist Party, among others.
Thus, while the right has the numbers to secure a numerical advantage in the Chamber of Deputies, it will have to contend with deep-seated and historic internal contradictions that could complicate a potential Bolsonaro presidency. Similarly, if Lula manages to prevail in the runoff, he will face a highly complex Senate and Chamber of Deputies that could potentially oppose him.
In the gubernatorial elections, the PL is also the biggest winner. Of 27 states, the Liberal Party has won six so far, while the PT, the Social Democratic Party, the PP, and the Republicans have each won three. Other states will have to elect their governors in a runoff election.
The most talked-about result is the decisive victory in São Paulo by Tarcísio de Freitas, Jair Bolsonaro’s former Minister of Infrastructure, who defeated Fernando Haddad, Lula’s right-hand man. São Paulo is Brazil’s most populous state (46 million people) and home to the South American country’s most powerful economic hubs.
It has been repeatedly emphasized that, due to its economic and geopolitical importance, the elections in Brazil are of enormous significance for the future of Latin America. It is no coincidence that former US Secretary of State Henry Kissinger (who promoted a series of dictatorships in the region) said: “Whichever way Brazil leans, Latin America will lean that way.”
The South American far right, which has enjoyed unprecedented electoral success in recent years, knows that without Brazil, its poker hand will always be incomplete. Uruguay indeed remains the only country in the region that does not share the views of Milei in Argentina, Kast in Chile, or De la Espriella in Colombia, but Brazil alone accounts for more than 50% of the region’s total GDP.
Similarly, the left and the center know that a potential victory for Lula would be one of the last battles to be fought against the formidable advance of a right wing aligned with the foreign policies of Trump and Israel, with the most orthodox neoliberalism, and with the economic interests of capital magnates, including the big tech companies. And if Lula manages to recover from this defeat, it would mark a major shift in course for the legendary union leader – not only for Brazil but for the entire region.
As Lula said, “now a different kind of campaign begins.” Both candidates will pull out all the stops to win control of South America’s most populous and powerful country. It certainly won’t be a “clean” campaign, but if one pays attention to the finalists’ statements, every means at their disposal will be used to achieve the coveted goal.
Political analysts have expressed concerns about alleged foreign interference in the elections. In July 2025, Trump had imposed 50% tariffs on Brazil over what he considered an unfair ruling against Jair Bolsonaro – whom the US president calls “his friend”.
In August 2026, the United States revoked the visa of Brazil’s ambassador to Washington, a move denounced by Brasília as a violation of international law.
Just last week, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio ordered the closure of the US embassy in Brazil during the elections due to alleged “threats,” a move viewed by some political commentators as a tactic to create tension during the elections.
During the first round of the presidential campaign, Trump did not make any direct statements of support for Flávio Bolsonaro. However, once the results were known, the US president told the press: “It’s a great victory – a close one, but a very, very great, incredible victory.”
In this regard, it remains to be seen whether Trump will make some kind of direct statement in support of Bolsonaro’s candidacy – as he has done in past elections in Colombia, Argentina, Honduras, and elsewhere – in favor of far-right candidates who support his agenda. Or, even more importantly, whether he will make any kind of promise to the Brazilian people if Bolsonaro wins – or, worse yet, threaten them if they vote for Lula.
Login