Democracy overseen by the elite.

Democracy overseen by the elite.

The elections and reforms of the First Republic paved the way for the consolidation of Electoral Justice in the country

Without democratic intentions, the economic and political elites of the First Republic (1889-1930) paved the way for the creation of the Electoral Court in 1932. According to social scientist Jean Lucas Macedo Fernandes, this represents a milestone in the construction of the representative democratic republic of Brazil. From the perspective of the functioning of the arrangements made by the political representatives of the time – all oligarchs –, Fernandes analyzed in his thesis, defended at the Institute of Philosophy and Human Sciences (IFCH) of Unicamp, the power struggles between the elites, which took place around the control of the electoral processes and, consequently, of the public machine. The institutionalization of the democratic process, through elections, contributed to the development of representative democracy in the country.

The research sheds light on this tortuous, non-linear path, open to enemies, that characterizes the implementation and defense of democracy. The researcher shows that the First Republic was not only full of episodes with negative consequences for national politics. On the contrary, the thesis points out that the dispute between the elites, who were fragmented in the states at that time, institutionally underpinned the democratic republic. “Democracy was born under the tutelage of the elites in Brazil. The electoral process became a mechanism for endorsing this representation,” says the social scientist.

The role of elites in relation to democracy, therefore, is contradictory because, at the same time that they worked in favor of themselves and other sectors of society, these elites also used the creation of democratic institutions in order to control politics. “But these were anti-popular groups that excluded the masses,” says Fernandes. At that time, the population lived predominantly in rural areas and voting was not among the rights of women or illiterate people.

Between the Proclamation of the Republic in 1889 and the end of its first phase in 1930, 39 elections took place – 11 for president, 14 for the Chamber of Deputies and 14 for the Senate. The electoral process already took place at the municipal, state and federal levels, but there were no councilors, mayors, representatives, governors or presidents of popular origin.

Electoral reforms

During this same period of more than 40 years, the competing elites promoted two important electoral reforms (in 1904 and 1916) and a constitutional reform (1926). The declared objective of the reforms, the moralization of elections and the fight against fraud, served the true intention of the elites: to regulate and control the electoral process in order to make it more predictable.

The representatives of the elites themselves, who approved the voting, the counting and the results of the election verification committee, competed for seats in the Chamber of Deputies. However, the two electoral reforms, especially the one in 1916, gradually removed the legislative branch's role as an endorser in elections and transferred it to the then emerging judiciary. Before the reforms, there were regional judges, but the Electoral Court did not yet exist. Through the presence of the Judiciary in elections, even before the creation of the Electoral Court, democracy gained ground. According to the study's advisor, Rachel Meneguello, the thesis presents an image of the First Republic that is practically nonexistent in the references in classical literature about the period. And it does so by highlighting aspects of the electoral processes of the time, the dynamics of institutionalization and, above all, the creation of the Electoral Court in 1932.

Social turmoil

The First Republic was anything but peaceful. At the end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th century, modern democracy was already being established in the Western world, with parties and an idea of ​​political representation, although there were different realities in each country. In Brazil, amid a context of social turmoil, with labor movements and the consolidation of some economic sectors due to the increase in immigration, the socioeconomic arrangement continued to leave a large part of the population aside. And Brazilian society as a whole began to demand a place in the world of politics.

There was also an intellectual debate that supported institutional mobilizations. The workers' movement was intensifying, as happened in the 1910s in Europe. The Communist Party of Brazil (PCB) was born in 1922, the same year that Arthur Bernardes' government (1922-1926) began, marked by violence, a state of siege and the repression of strikes. It was also a period marked by several popular mobilizations against elitist party politics.

The military from the beginning

In this context, the role of the military in national politics stands out. Members of the Armed Forces led the country after the Declaration of the Republic, initially with Marshal Deodoro da Fonseca and, later, with Marshal Floriano Peixoto, the first two presidents of Brazil. The first civilian president elected by direct vote, Prudente de Moraes, remained in power from 1894 to 1898. In 1910, the military returned to the scene, with Hermes da Fonseca, Deodoro's nephew, who ran in the elections against Ruy Barbosa. “In democratic Brazilian politics, we have a strong influence from the military that comes from that time and from the Empire itself,” observed Meneguello.

The discussion about the presence of the military in power was addressed by Ruy Barbosa during his civilian campaign in the 1910 election, the most disputed of the First Republic. But Ruy Barbosa had his contradictions, says Fernandes. The politician was part of the elite at the same time that he helped to provoke moralization and to think about a less exclusive representation.

“Our democracy is still very dependent on this endorsement given by groups of political elites who have been in power for a long time,” the researcher assesses. “Our political culture is marked by practices of coronelismo, outside of institutions, and by symbolic violence towards less educated voters, especially in regions further away from urban centers.”

More recently, the strength of public institutions has safeguarded democracy amid several threats – from challenges to electronic voting machines to the attempted coup in January 2023 –, says the advisor. “We are institutionally organized, but that cannot be all. Inequalities still prevail. The lack of rights creates mobilizations and demands that democracy cannot handle. Just as it cannot handle the interests of the elites, which are increasingly broad.”

“Our democracy has had a tortuous trajectory. At times, the discussion became tense and this resulted in a coup, as in 1964 – a coup carried out to prevent attempts to expand the role of the masses in political decisions. Democracy must be understood as a non-linear process that is subject to setbacks. It is not a one-way street,” says Fernandes. “The contradiction of democracy is that you see anti-democratic discourses gaining strength. When we see various right-wing movements growing all over the world, this is because democracies are open to their enemies all the time,” adds Meneguello.