Brazil prepares to elect a hypocrite

For a liberal woman like me, it’s hard to understand why anyone would vote for a presidential candidate who has been described by international publications as “racist, homophobic and sexist” (Libération), “a threat to democracy” (The Economist), a “Trump of the tropics” (The Guardian), “a xenophobe” (Clarín) and a sympathiser with “military dictatorships and torturers” who has “openly expressed fascist ideas” (Zeit). I’m referring, of course, to Jair Bolsonaro, the current front-runner to become the next president of Brazil. The far-right Bolsonaro is a former army officer who has served seven terms as a federal congressman, during which, according to Le Monde, he was “an insignificant politician from Brasília, better known for his verbal excesses than for his parliamentary activism.” Now, according to a recent survey by the polling firm Ibope, 59 per cent of voters plan to support him in the second round of the elections, which will take place on Oct 28. (Fernando Haddad, the candidate of the left-leaning Workers’ Party, has 41pc of voters behind him.) Bolsonaro’s ascendancy has deeply polarised Brazilian society. For the past decade, our presidential elections have been the stage for a center-left versus center-right face-off, which at times has provoked some heated debates — but now it feels like the house is burning down. More than ever, the election has become a battle over values — fairness versus equality, freedom versus authority, justice versus legality — in which both sides are appealing to the self-evident nature of their own views. And so in an effort to understand my fellow Brazilians, I’ve turned to the work of the psychologist Jonathan Haidt, whose moral foundations theory makes an impressive attempt to connect people with differing political views. Having done so, I can concede that there’s something about Bolsonaro that activates deep moral intuitions in his supporters. Many people side with him not for his proposals but because to them, he has become a symbol of everything good. The problem is that these people are responding only to Bolsonaro the symbol — not Bolsonaro the man. Bolsonaro speaks of fairness, for example. According to Haidt, fairness is about proportionality; it is the idea that people should get only what they deserve. Bolsonaro’s supporters are angry about the perceived abuse of social welfare programmes such as Bolsa Família, which provides financial aid to poor families. They feel aggrieved by the image of people getting money without working. (They also don’t support affirmative action.) That ’s all understandable. And yet if that’s the case, why aren’t Bolsonaro’s voters more disturbed by the times he himself has violated principles of fairness? For many years, for instance, he received housing assistance from the Congress despite possessing an apartment in Brasília. When asked about this, he told a newspaper, in vulgar language, that he used the allowance to have sex. What about the fact that in his 26 years as a lawmaker, he secured the passage of only two bills, while at the same time multiplying his assets and those of his family? Bolsonaro and his sons possess have properties valued at $4 million, according to the newspaper Folha de S Paulo. Bolsonaro speaks of patriotism and authority — moral foundations that are important to conservatives. His campaign slogan is “Brazil above everything and God above everyone.” And yet, as a captain in the army in the 1980s, he was punished for disloyalty after writing an article in a magazine publicly complaining about his wages — an interesting display of respect for authority. He was later accused and convicted of planning to bomb military barracks as well as a pipeline that supplies water to Rio de Janeiro, also as part of his protest again isplay of respect for authority. He was later accused and convicted of planning to bomb military barracks as well as a pipeline that supplies water to Rio de Janeiro, also as part of his protest against low salaries. (Bolsonaro denies the bomb plan and was acquitted on appeal.) According to military records, Bolsonaro’s superiors also considered him immature. For a brief time, he was involved in gold mining; his superior, Col. Carlos Pellegrino, said that the captain had ambitions “to seek by other means” — outside the military — “the opportunity to fulfil his aspirations to be a rich man.” So much for all that patriotism. One thing is true, though: Bolsonaro is loyal. The Bolsonaro clan are a tight-knit bunch, many of them working in the same field. Bolsonaro is so supportive of traditional family structures that he has been married three times. His first wife, Rogéria, was a City Council member in Rio de Janeiro for two terms, with the support of her then-husband. His second wife, Ana Cristina, at one point accused him of threatening her, but eventually withdrew her complaint; she was running for Congress, but failed to get elected. Three of his sons are also politicians: Flávio has just been elected to Brazil’s Senate; Eduardo was re-elected to the congress; and Carlos has been a City Council member in Rio de Janeiro since he was 17. Bolsonaro’s brother, Renato, tried and failed to be mayor of Miracatu and became a special aide to a City Council member. He was discharged from the job after a TV report revealed that he was getting paid without reporting to work. Many conservative voters appreciate authority because it creates order. They aspire to elect a strong ruler with a firm grip on the country. However, I’m not sure Bolsonaro is capable of enforcing his command. One example: He acknowledges that he has only a “superficial understanding” of economics. When asked questions about taxes or public debt, he relies entirely on the judgment of his economic adviser, Paulo Guedes. In addition, after being stabbed in a recent street rally, he has refused to attend political debates with Haddad, which hasn’t made him sound authoritative or self-confident at all. According to Haidt, conservative voters also place particular importance on the value of sanctity (or purity), rejecting ideas of degradation. But Bolsonaro would degrade our nation with his rudeness and ignorance. He has been disrespectful to women, homosexuals, blacks and indigenous people, and has shown an inability to represent our people with class and intelligence. He’s far from being a world leader. When it comes to moral intuitions, Bolsonaro looks poised to fulfil conservative hopes only on the surface: Look closer, and he acts against everything they most cherish. Let’s hope Brazilians realise that — and quickly.