Elon Musk: A New Antagonist in Brazilian Politics?
by Maria José Zehn
Reviewed and edited by Matheus Lucas Hebling
Elon Musk, the enigmatic billionaire known for his ventures like SpaceX and Tesla, has recently become a prominent figure in Brazilian politics, albeit for controversial reasons. His confrontational stance and direct criticisms of X (former Twitter) aimed at the government and the judiciary have sparked heated debates and raised concerns among the Brazilian population. However, Musk’s involvement in Brazilian affairs extends beyond mere criticism; it represents a significant challenge to the nation’s democratic institutions and political stability.
In recent months, Musk’s public clashes with Supreme Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes have dominated headlines, as he openly questioned judicial decisions and accused the Brazilian judiciary of censorship. These confrontations have escalated tensions and fueled a broader debate about the judiciary’s role in regulating free speech and media in the country.
Moreover, this episode comes at a moment in Brazilian politics, as Congress debates regulations to curb the spread of misinformation and fake news on social media platforms. Concerns over the impact of disinformation on electoral processes and the broader democratic fabric of the country fuel these discussions.
The proliferation of fake news has emerged as a significant challenge in Brazilian politics, with misinformation campaigns often used to manipulate public opinion and undermine trust in democratic institutions. Musk’s vocal criticisms of the government and judiciary have added a new dimension to this debate, raising questions about the influence of influential individuals in shaping public discourse and political outcomes.
Furthermore, his involvement in this episode underscores the growing influence of tech billionaires in shaping global affairs. With vast economic resources and unparalleled access to digital platforms, individuals like Musk wield significant power and influence over public opinion and political processes. However, this influence is only sometimes wielded responsibly, as evidenced by Musk’s confrontational approach and disregard for established norms of political discourse.
Elon Musk’s emergence in Brazilian politics mirrors a broader trend of influential figures utilizing media platforms to shape political discourse and influence electoral outcomes. This phenomenon is not unique to Brazil but is evident across the globe, with notable examples including former U.S. President Donald Trump and other powerful politicians leveraging media in their electoral campaigns.
Donald Trump’s presidency was characterized by his unprecedented use of social media, particularly Twitter, to communicate directly with his supporters and bypass traditional media channels. Trump’s provocative tweets and controversial statements often dominated news cycles, shaping public opinion and influencing political debates. His mastery of social media allowed him to cultivate a loyal base of supporters and amplify his message, contributing to his successful presidential campaign 2016.
The events of January 6th, 2021, in the United States, when a violent mob stormed the Capitol building in Washington, D.C., shocked the world and underscored the potential dangers of political polarization and misinformation. The insurrection, fueled by false claims of election fraud and perpetuated by inflammatory rhetoric from then-President Donald Trump and his supporters, resulted in chaos, destruction, and loss of life. The attempted coup highlighted the fragility of democratic institutions and the alarming consequences of unchecked disinformation and political extremism.
Comparatively, the events of January 8th, 2024, in Brazil bear similarities to the turmoil witnessed in the United States. Today, Brazilian authorities foiled a plot targeting the Supreme Federal Court (STF) and other government institutions, known as the “8 de Janeiro” plot. The investigation revealed plans for violent attacks and destabilization efforts orchestrated by far-right extremists, echoing the tactics employed in the U.S. Capitol riot. While the scale and outcomes of the two events differed, they both underscored the challenges posed by radicalization, misinformation, and political violence in modern democracies. Both coup attempts were orchestrated and disseminated live on social networks.
The necessity of regulating social media and other channels, such as large working platforms, has become increasingly apparent in recent years due to their significant influence on public discourse, societal dynamics, and economic activities. These platforms have amassed unprecedented power and reach, enabling them to shape political opinions, disseminate information, and facilitate economic transactions on a global scale. However, their unchecked influence has also given rise to challenges that necessitate regulatory intervention.
One of the primary reasons for regulating social media and other digital platforms is to address issues related to misinformation and disinformation. The rapid spread of fake news, conspiracy theories, and harmful content on these platforms has contributed to societal polarization, undermined trust in institutions, and posed risks to public health and safety. Regulatory measures are needed to hold platforms accountable for the content they host and to ensure that they take proactive steps to mitigate the spread of misinformation.
Additionally, the dominance of a few tech giants in the digital space has raised concerns about competition and market concentration. Companies like Facebook, Google, and X (the former Twitter) wield significant influence over online discourse and commerce, stifling competition and innovation. Regulatory interventions, such as antitrust enforcement and data privacy regulations, are necessary to promote fair competition, protect consumer rights, and prevent monopolistic behavior.
Furthermore, the rise of platform-based gig economy models has highlighted the need for regulations to protect the rights and well-being of workers. Many gig economy workers, such as Uber drivers and food delivery couriers, need more job security, benefits, and fair wages due to the precarious nature of their employment arrangements. Regulating these platforms is essential to ensure that workers are treated fairly, receive adequate protections, and have avenues for recourse in cases of exploitation or abuse.
Moreover, regulatory intervention is necessary to address broader societal concerns related to digital platforms, such as privacy violations, algorithmic bias, and online harassment. These platforms collect vast user data without adequate consent or transparency, leading to privacy breaches and surveillance concerns. Additionally, algorithmic systems used by these platforms often perpetuate biases and discrimination, exacerbating social inequalities and reinforcing existing power dynamics. Regulation is needed to hold platforms accountable for these issues and to ensure that they operate in a manner that respects users’ rights and promotes equity and inclusion.
Regulating social media and other digital platforms is essential to address various pressing challenges related to misinformation, market concentration, worker rights, and societal well-being. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, influential figures like Musk possess significant power and influence that can disrupt democratic processes and societal tensions. Effective regulation can foster a digital ecosystem that is fair, transparent, and conducive to the public interest while also preserving the benefits of digital innovation and connectivity.
Electoral Accessibility in Brazil: The Role of the Electoral Judiciary
by Márcia Inês Schaefer*
Reviewed and edited by Matheus Lucas Hebling
Since 2012, the third Thursday of May has been celebrated as Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) to get everyone talking, thinking, and learning about digital access and inclusion for people with disabilities.
To participate in the GAAD initiative, as a political scientist, I have chosen to address the topic of electoral accessibility, giving attention to the actions on digital accessibility promoted by the Brazilian Electoral Judiciary. As Silva and de la Rue (2015, p. 320) pointed out, “Citizen participation in the public sphere can only be guaranteed if e-government policies are concerned with creating space for anyone and everyone to access government websites, consult information, and participate in the construction of the political process.”
According to the Brazilian legal framework, which is aligned with the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (CRPD), the definitions of barriers and accessibility are as follows.
The Brazilian Inclusion Law (Law nº 13.146/2015) defines barriers as any obstacles, attitudes, or behaviors that prevent or limit the social and political participation of persons with disabilities, as well as the possibility of enjoying their rights to accessibility, freedom of movement and expression, communication, access to information, understanding, safe circulation, among others.
Six types of barriers are usually identified: urban planning, architectonic, transport, communications, and information, technological, and attitudinal.
In Art. 3, the Brazilian Inclusion Law defines accessibility as the “possibility and condition of reach for use, with safety and autonomy, of spaces, furniture, urban equipment, buildings, transport, information, and communication, including their systems and technologies, as well as other services and facilities open to the public, for public use or private for collective use, both in urban and rural areas, by people with disabilities or reduced mobility.”
As primarily known, political institutions, such as the political parties and the Electoral Judiciary, play an essential role by providing the conditions that people with disabilities can participate in the electoral process by voting and being candidates (Mello et al., 2021). How do our political institutions translate the definition of accessibility into actions in daily activities in a way that builds a more inclusive society for all people?
The answer to this question is not easy because, in Brazil, we have a lack of studies about the electoral participation of persons with disabilities. This is due to historical reasons, such as exclusion and invisibilization processes suffered by these groups, and the recent availability of electoral data on this portion of the population (Mello et al., 2021; Lüchmann, Schaefer, and Mello, 2022; Piccolo, 2023).
We do not yet have a systematic study of how the Brazilian political parties proceed to include persons with disabilities in their party cadres and what level of attention is paid to the issue of accessibility in their daily activities. Mello et al. (2021) mentioned that some political parties have a committee or other internal structure focused on disability issues. Piccolo (2023) noticed that only a few parties provide accessibility resources on their official websites and pages on social media.
On the other side, some studies emphasize the relevance of the Electoral Accessibility Program of the Brazilian Electoral Judiciary (Dias and Junqueira, 2017; Neto, 2020; Mello, 2021). Following the recommendation of the National Council of Justice (CNJ), this program was created in 2012 (Res. TSE nº 23.381/2012) to gradually implement measures to remove physical, architectural, communication, and attitudinal barriers, to promote broad and unrestricted access, with safety and autonomy for people with disabilities or reduced mobility in the electoral process.
The Electoral Accessibility Program has nine main goals:
Provide full accessibility at polling stations;
Adequacy of electronic voting machines with Braille system, audio system, and Libras;
Training of poll workers to assist and facilitate voting by voters with disabilities or reduced mobility;
Make necessary adaptations to websites and procedural monitoring systems to guarantee full access to information available to people with visual impairments;
Through the media sector of the Electoral Courts:
I – in non-election years: carry out awareness campaigns for voters with disabilities or reduced mobility regarding the importance of voting, requesting an update on their situation before the Electoral Court so that it can provide what is necessary to facilitate voting;
II – in an election year: carry out information campaigns for voters with disabilities or reduced mobility regarding the importance of voting, informing: the possibility of, up to 151 days before the election, transfer to polling stations capable of meeting their needs; the possibility of informing the electoral judge of their restrictions and needs, so that the Electoral Court can provide the means to facilitate their voting; and that voters with special needs will be able to count on the assistance of a person they trust during voting;
Permanent updating of the status of voters with disabilities or reduced mobility in the National Voter Register;
Through the Personnel Management Secretariats of the Electoral Courts, implementation of actions aimed at raising awareness about the importance of accessibility and social integration of people with disabilities, training employees on accessibility standards, and eliminating barriers;
Incorporate accessibility actions and goals into the strategic planning of Electoral Courts;
Establishment of a multidisciplinary committee designed to prepare an action plan covering the measures provided for in this Resolution, monitor the activities carried out, and forward the respective report to the Superior Electoral Court by December 20th of each year.
The materialization of the program is through action plans prepared by the permanent accessibility and inclusion committees of all regional electoral courts in the country. These committees are composed of employees from the electoral courts. However, in specific issues, there are often technical cooperations with non-governmental organizations of persons with disabilities, universities, and other government institutions.
There are at least five main actions: management of accessibility and inclusion in the electoral court, accessibility of services, communicational accessibility, technological accessibility, and urban and architectural accessibility.
According to the annual accessibility reports of the Electoral Judiciary, the electoral courts may be progressively promoting digital accessibility following the E-Government Manual (eMAG) and the Web Content Accessibility Guidelines (WCAG).
Some of the digital accessibility services offered are the availability of alternative text in the images used, description of the form contents, shortcut keys, content skipping keys, accessible language, background contrast, and others. Users with difficulty accessing the website’s contents can use the Rybená functionality. Rybená offers the deaf, hearing impaired, partially visual, elderly, illiterate, dyslexic, and others with special needs the possibility of understanding the texts on web pages unsupervised. The software translates texts from Portuguese into Brazilian Sign Language (LIBRAS) and converts written Portuguese to voice.
Some challenges regarding the promotion of accessible digital environments are, for example, the fact that the construction of an inclusive institutional culture requires a lot of study and interest from actors in its implementation; adapting to accessibility can be a time-consuming process, often due to budget limits for purchasing software or paying companies that offer accessibility services, such as LIBRAS interpreters and shorthand.
It is essential to highlight the relevance of dialogue between the electoral judiciary and civil society organizations formed by people with disabilities, as these can contribute significantly to ensuring that accessibility is consistent with the actual demands of these people, as, despite general standards, there are many specificities to guarantee accessibility for different people with disabilities.
Finally, in a country marked by social inequalities that are also reflected in digital inequality (Hansen, 2021), it is essential to consider that many people, with or without disabilities, do not even have digital access. When they do, they are often not instructed on how to use it. In this sense, the debate on digital accessibility is also permeated by the debate on social inequality.
References
Brasil. Lei Nº 13.146/2015. Institui a Lei Brasileira de Inclusão da Pessoa com Deficiência (Estatuto da Pessoa com Deficiência). Disponível em: https://www.planalto.gov.br/ccivil_03/_ato2015-2018/2015/lei/l13146.htm
Conselho Nacional de Justiça. Resolução CNJ N. 401/2021. Dispõe sobre o desenvolvimento de diretrizes de acessibilidade e inclusão de pessoas com deficiência nos órgãos do Poder Judiciário e de seus serviços auxiliares, e regulamenta o funcionamento de unidades de acessibilidade e inclusão. Disponível em: https://atos.cnj.jus.br/atos/detalhar/3987
Dias J, Junqueira ALC. O Direito à Participação Política das Pessoas com Deficiência. Resenha Eleitoral [Internet]. 1º de julho de 2017 [citado 7º de abril de 2024]; 21(2): 159-80. Disponível em: https://revistaresenha.emnuvens.com.br/revista/article/view/96
Global Accessibility Awareness Day (GAAD) Foundation: https://accessibility.day/. It was accessed on April 14th, 2024.
Hansen, Jaqueline Resmini. Desigualdades digitais, políticas e sociais no Brasil: um diálogo entre as abordagens do comportamento político e dos estudos de internet. Tese de Doutorado em Ciência Política, UFMG, 2021. Available from: https://repositorio.ufmg.br/handle/1843/49316
Lüchmann, L. H. H.; Schaefer, M. I.; Mello, A. G. A participação política das pessoas com deficiência no Brasil. In: Karina Lilia Pasquariello Mariano, Lígia Helena Hahn Lüchmann e Rafael da Silva. (Org.). Estudos sobre a participação política no Brasil. 1ed. São Paulo: Cultura Acadêmica, 2022, v. 16, p. 163-196. Available from: https://npms.paginas.ufsc.br/files/2023/04/livro-procad-2-1.pdf
Mello, Anahí Guedes de et al. A participação eleitoral das pessoas com deficiência no Brasil: desafios e perspectivas. Estudos Eleitorais, Brasília, DF, v. 15, n. 2, p. 267-282, jul./dez. 2021. Available from: https://bibliotecadigital.tse.jus.br/xmlui/handle/bdtse/10842
Melo, Liana Holanda de. Direito ao voto da pessoa com deficiência a partir do estudo do Programa de Acessibilidade da Justiça Eleitoral do Ceará. Dissertação de Mestrado em Ciência Política. Lisboa/Portugal: Universidade de Lisboa, 2021. Available from: https://search.proquest.com/openview/977d2ffbfb5ab3bd2005fa341fac7376/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=2026366&diss=y
Neto, Demétrio Saker. A participação da pessoa com deficiência no sistema eleitoral do estado do Ceará. R. Themis, Fortaleza, v. 18, n. 1, p.71-97, jan./jun. 2020. Available from: https://doi.org/10.56256/themis.v18i1.751
Piccolo GM, Mendes EG. Direito inacessível: pessoas com deficiência e eleições no Brasil. Lua Nova [Internet]. 2023 Sep; (120): 287–323. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1590/0102-287323/120
Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. Instrução Normativa Nº 10, de 10 de agosto de 2022. Regulamenta a gestão de conteúdos dos Portais da Justiça Eleitoral. Disponível em: https://www.tse.jus.br/legislacao/compilada/in/2022/instrucao-normativa-no-10-de-10-de-agosto-de-2022
Tribunal Superior Eleitoral. Resolução TSE nº 23.381/2012. Institui o Programa de Acessibilidade da Justiça Eleitoral e dá outras providências. https://www.tse.jus.br/legislacao/compilada/res/2012/resolucao-no-23-381-de-19-de-junho-de-2012
* Márcia Inês Schaefer is a PhD student in Sociology and Political Science at the Federal University of Santa Catarina. Member of the Research Group about Social Movements (NPMS/UFSC) and BraS Center. Her research interest is mainly electoral and non-electoral participation, focused on the political inclusion of persons with disabilities in Brazil.
Echoes of Silence: Reflecting on Brazil’s Military Dictatorship 60 Years On
Editor’s Note: This is an opinion essay.
The 60th anniversary of the onset of the military dictatorship in Brazil is a moment of profound reflection and a crucial reminder of the fragility of democracy. On March 31, 1964, Brazil embarked on a dark chapter in its history, entering a period of authoritarian rule that would last for over two decades. This time was marked by censorship, persecution, and the suppression of political freedoms, casting a long shadow over the nation’s journey towards democratic governance. As we remember this significant historical milestone, it is imperative to underscore the importance of memory, democratic values, and the continuous effort needed to fortify political institutions against the encroachment of authoritarian values and practices.
The Importance of Memory
The memory of the military dictatorship in Brazil serves as a solemn reminder of the cost of lost freedoms and the profound impact of authoritarian rule on individuals and society as a whole. Remembering this period is not merely an act of historical recollection but a vigilant safeguard against the recurrence of such dark times. It compels us to confront uncomfortable truths about human rights abuses, political repression, and the silencing of dissenting voices. The act of remembering fosters a collective consciousness that values freedom, champions human rights, and promotes empathy for those who suffered under the dictatorship.
In educational contexts, the narrative of this era should be preserved and taught with accuracy and sensitivity, ensuring future generations understand the high stakes of political engagement and the precious nature of democratic freedoms. Memory acts as a bridge linking past lessons with present and future actions, reminding us that democracy is a continual work in progress, requiring active participation, vigilance, and commitment.
The Unassailable Value of Democratic Principles
Democracy, with all its imperfections, offers a framework within which freedom, equality, and justice can flourish. The anniversary of the military dictatorship’s inception is a poignant reminder of the alternatives—a reminder that the rights to free speech, assembly, and political participation are not guaranteed but must be actively defended and nurtured. Democratic values such as these are the bedrock upon which societies can build inclusive, prosperous, and harmonious futures. They enable the resolution of conflicts through dialogue and consensus rather than through force and intimidation.
Moreover, the preservation of democratic institutions and the adherence to the rule of law are essential for the continuation of a society where individuals can aspire to better lives. These institutions—be they judicial, legislative, or educational—serve as the pillars that uphold the principles of democracy, ensuring accountability, transparency, and the equitable application of justice. Strengthening these institutions is an ongoing task, necessitating constant vigilance and reform to address emergent challenges and societal changes.
The Role of Gatekeeping and the Erosion of Political Norms
The gatekeeping in politics, which involves political parties and leaders acting to prevent individuals with authoritarian tendencies from gaining power. The failure of gatekeeping mechanisms in Brazil, where military and civilian elites colluded to overthrow President João Goulart, illustrates how the lack of strong democratic norms and institutions can pave the way for authoritarianism. This emphasizes the importance of political parties and leaders in maintaining democratic integrity by rejecting those who threaten democratic norms.
Also, the gradual erosion of democratic norms is a pathway to authoritarianism. In the Brazilian context, the military dictatorship systematically dismantled democratic institutions and norms, restricting political freedoms, and persecuting opponents. This historical example serves as a stark reminder of the need to vigilantly protect democratic norms, such as mutual toleration and restraint, to prevent the slide into authoritarian governance.
The Dangers of Authoritarian Values and Practices
The history of the military dictatorship in Brazil highlights the dangers posed by authoritarian values and practices. When power is concentrated in the hands of a few, and the checks and balances essential to democratic governance are eroded, the result is a system where dissent is punished, diversity is not tolerated, and the personal freedoms of individuals are curtailed. Such a system not only stifles innovation and progress but also sows the seeds of division and conflict within society.
The resurgence of authoritarian sentiments in various parts of the world today makes the memory of Brazil’s dictatorship especially relevant. It serves as a cautionary tale that the slip into authoritarianism can begin with seemingly small concessions to power in the name of security or national interest. Therefore, it is imperative to critically examine and resist any policies or rhetoric that undermine democratic norms, trivialize human rights, or marginalize vulnerable populations.
Strengthening Political Institutions: A Solution
To avert a return to authoritarian practices, it is crucial to strengthen political institutions and ensure they are resilient, inclusive, and responsive to the needs of all citizens. This involves fostering a political culture that values pluralism, encourages active civic engagement, and promotes informed participation in the democratic process. Strengthening political institutions also means ensuring that they are not only accessible but also representative of the diverse tapestry of society.
Transparency and accountability mechanisms must be robust, allowing for the monitoring of government actions and the prevention of corruption. Furthermore, the judiciary must remain independent, serving as a bulwark against abuses of power. Strengthening political institutions is not a task for the government alone; civil society, the media, and individual citizens all have roles to play in upholding the principles of democracy.
BRaS Blog ISSN 2701-4924
