Whatever happened to democracy? Carolina Tonon Cardoso, Runner Up in the 2024 CoBS Student CSR Article Competition at FGV-EAESP, dives into the factors that have led to political polarization to underscore the importance of revisiting and reinforcing collaborative efforts among nations.

How did Mr. Milei win in Argentina? What will happen under Mr. Trump’s new mandate? These are questions that every adult and politicized teenager is pondering. Even children are asking their parents about the constant protests and Twitter wars. Mr. Javier Milei, self-determined as a libertarian liberal, started another far-right government in Argentina, similar to Mr. Jair Bolsonaro‘s four-year government in Brazil, and likewise, Donald Trump in the United States. There are other examples in Europe, such as Giorgia Meloni in Italy and Viktor Orbán in Hungary.

This scenario of extreme governments appears to have created a divided world, where there is no longer dialogue, only the blind defense of one point of view. Moreover, this worldwide political polarization is impacting the social and environmental fields in ways that need to be discussed.

The roots of the current political polarization

Maybe it is not clear how the governments of Mr. Jair Bolsonaro (Brazil) and Mr. Donald Trump (United States) have caused harm to society, and why the world is concerned about the increasing number of world leaders with similar political positions, such as Javier Milei. However, revisiting the attack on Brazil’s National Congress on January 8, 2023, mirroring the events in the U.S. Capitol in January 2021, may elucidate the magnitude of the problem. Supporters of former President Trump and ex-President Bolsonaro invaded the symbols of local democracy to protest against the election results and call for military intervention. According to Steven Levitisky, we are experiencing a democratic regression.

In world history, there have been many waves of polarization. Political polarization can be defined as the clustering of people into groups, normally two. These two opposite groups see each other as enemies, excluding the possibility of dialogue and peaceful disagreements. These aspects threaten democracies because the recognition of adversaries’ legitimacy is removed (Levitisky, 2017). Moreover, there are some factors that contribute to a reverse wave: the weakness of democratic values among key elite groups and the general public; and severe economic setbacks, which intensified social conflict and enhanced the popularity of remedies that could be imposed only by authoritarian governments, etc. (Huntington, 1991).

Following the Second World War, the world found itself essentially divided between capitalist and socialist nations. The Cold War profoundly altered the nature of conflicts thus far. Wars are no longer waged over land and religion; rather, they are driven by ideology (Bauer, 2003). From this moment on, politics ceased to be one of the areas of discussion and mobilization within society and instead invaded all areas: religion, culture, economy, and the environment. Despite the majority of social dynamics being inherently political, the bipolar and polarized nature of politics make a society tense and divided. The prevailing political bipolarity justified rule-breaking, as it dehumanized adversaries by stripping them of their rights and legitimacy. Hence, to show political power, the United States used manipulation techniques and entered into unethical agreements with Latin American countries, and even financed policies to ensure that the American bloc maintained a unanimous liberal political stance.

The National Association of History (ANPUH), published a document in 2007. It gathered previously established evidence that Mr. Lyndon Johnson’s government financially and militarily supported Brazilian military and conservative elites for the 1964 coup, which led to a dictatorship lasting over 20 years. The United States did not seek economic or territorial exchanges; rather, it craved to ensure Brazil’s alignment with its political position. Funding a military coup wasn’t exclusive to Brazil, it also happened in Chile (Winn, 2009). Therefore, the landscape was civil and military dictatorships throughout Latin America, widespread international insecurity, and misinformation.

In this context, it is clear that democracy was in crisis – exerting authoritarian pressure is not a democratic stance. However, the 1980s brought the third wave of democracy, fostering dialogue, inaugurating constitutions, and enabling broad popular participation. This can be observed through the end of the Brazilian military dictatorship in 1985, the Argentine dictatorship in 1983, and the Chilean dictatorship in 1988, as well as the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989. According to Samuel Huntington (1991, p.3), “between 1974 and 1990, at least 30 countries transitioned to democracy.”

What has happened since the 1980s?

In the early 1990s, the scenario of leaders in North America, South America, and Europe was democratic, with Mr. Fernando Henrique Cardoso in Brazil, Mr. Bill Clinton in the United States, Mr. François Mitterrand in France, and more. Consequently, in terms of the environment, the world witnessed the inaugural United Nations Conference on Environment and Development, also known as Eco-92, in 1992. The Rio Conference solidified the idea of sustainable development and deliberated on an economic growth model that prioritizes ecological balance over consumption. It also contributed to raising awareness that environmental damage was predominantly the responsibility of developed countries (Camara Dos Deputados).

Additionally, one of the most significant protocols to combat climate change and environmental damage, the Kyoto Protocol, was established in the 1990s. Globalization and the feeling of collaboration among countries were on the rise until 2008. The global negative impact that the real estate market crisis in the United States generated resulted in the economy of many countries put the benefits of this collaboration in question. In Brazil, there was a significant slowdown in the economy, which generated popular discontentment regarding the government and its institutions (G1).

Retaking Samuel Huntington’s theory, Brazil presented the favorable conditions for a reverse wave of democracy: the weakness of democratic values and severe economic setback. Along with this, a major corruption scandal (2005) in the federal government came to light, weakening Brazilian democracy. This scandal was referred to as “Mensalão,” and it involved the transfer of funds from companies, which made donations to the Workers’ Party (PT) to gain the support of politicians. Furthermore, starting in 2014, an economic crisis hit the country during Dilma Rousseff’s (PT) presidency, which was highly anticipated by the population as she was the first woman to govern the country.

There is also an aggravating factor in this polarized scenario: the phenomenon of post-truth. Post-truth prioritizes personal beliefs, like religion and culture, over objective truth. In relation to politics, this leads people to cluster into groups with similar individual values and adopt politically biased positions based on their beliefs. A clear example is the victory of Mr. Jair Bolsonaro in the presidential elections of 2018. Mr. Bolsonaro’s campaign catchphrase was: Brazil above all, God above everyone. This presents similarity to slogans used during the military dictatorship, such as “Brazil, love it or leave it.” These two sentences are appealing to nationality and to a logic of exclusion for those who disagree with the government’s position. So, Brazilian citizens knew the danger of this speech, especially those who have lived through the dictatorship. However, the majority decided to cling to religion and vote for Mr. Bolsonaro.

One of the biggest consequences of the ex-President´s government was achieving, in 2020, the highest peak of deforestation in Amazonia since 2008. In this context, the former president reduced the resources of environmental monitoring agencies, such as IBAMA, weakening their ability to monitor and combat illegal deforestation (Folha De São Paulo). Furthermore, Mr. Bolsonaro adopted an anti-environmental rhetoric and questioned the effectiveness of environmental protection policies, which could encourage invasions of protected lands and illegal deforestation (Folha De São Paulo).

In relation to social effects, during the election period, in 2022, it was very common to see Brazilian families cutting ties due to political positions, those being pro-Bolsonaro or pro-Lula. Additionally, on voting day, people went to the polls dressed in two different color palettes to identify who supported whom. Bolsonaro supporters wore green and yellow, the colors of the Brazilian flag, a typical radical instrument: turning a country’s identity into a nationalist symbol. In this context, people felt fear of being insulted in the streets or on social media.

When Mr. Luís Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) won the election, Mr. Bolsonaro´s supporters attacked the National Congress on January 8, 2023. Chaos ensued as they clashed with security forces and vandalized property inside. Consequently, not only do institutions suffer material and moral damages, but the population suffers as well. This radicalization puts people’s lives at risk, engaging in wars that need not be fought. When a democratic society is not guided by peaceful debate and respect for citizens, that democracy begins to die (LevItsky, 2018).

War: A reflection capable of producing a solution

In 2022, Russia initiated a war against Ukraine. Although the conflict had begun much earlier in 2014, Russia only invaded Ukraine and began a widespread armed conflict in 2022. Russia’s president since 2000, Mr. Vladimir Putin, widely known for his authoritarian leadership, has gradually eroded democratic processes, such as abolishing direct elections for governors in Russian regions (2004), criminalizing the LGBTQIAPN+ movement (2023), and engaging in a series of armed conflicts, including with Georgia (2008), the Crimea region (2014), and now, Ukraine. According to the president of Ukraine, Mr. Volodymyr Zelensky, 31 thousand Ukrainian soldiers have already been killed in the conflict. Furthermore, in 2023, another war began: Israel and Palestine, which the UN confirms 24 thousand deaths. This scenario presents an opportunity for world leaders to once again adopt a collaborative stance to prevent further conflicts from erupting. Just as democratic international organizations were established after World War II to prevent the destruction of populations and the atrocities of fascism, now is the time to create new agreements and organizations.

In terms of the environment, the progress of the Kyoto Protocol did not evolve as expected. It was established that, between 2008 and 2012, there was a reduction of greenhouse gas emissions by 5.2%, compared to the numbers recorded in 1990. However, worldwide greenhouse gas emissions grew by 16.2% from 2005 to 2012 (Folha De São Paulo, 2015). In an attempt to address the issue, the Kyoto Protocol was replaced by the Paris Agreement (2015), which aims to limit the increase in global average temperature to “well below” 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels. Still, a new report from the United Nations Environment Agency states that, in the most optimistic scenario, the likelihood of limiting warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels is only 14%. Therefore, it is high time we question why people complied with government directives to stay home to curb the spread of coronavirus, but disregard requests to use public transport and reduce meat consumption, as methods to contain the global warming. As Krenak (2017) highlights, this discrepancy begs examination. Once more, it is through the unity of nations and a resurgence of the collective sense of responsibility that existed in the 90s that we can hope to mitigate climate change.

What to expect

Political polarization is increasing, as evidenced by the election of authoritarian leaders in democratic countries. This trend is leading to a weakening of democratic principles, characterized by the demonization of opposing viewpoints. Furthermore, there is a growing sense of isolation among nations, eroding the collective sense of responsibility and unity. This situation is particularly dangerous as it diminishes the commitment to addressing global issues such as climate change. Nevertheless, the current environment of political instability and genuine environmental threats may prompt leaders to unite in efforts to mitigate the crisis. The question remains: will democracy prevail?

Useful links:

• Link up with Carolina Cardosa on LinkedIn
• Read a related article:
• Discover FGV-EAESP Brazil
• Apply for the Master in International Management and MBA programs.

Learn more about the Council on Business & Society

The Council on Business & Society (The CoBS), visionary in its conception and purpose, was created in 2011, and is dedicated to promoting responsible leadership and tackling issues at the crossroads of business and society including sustainability, diversity, ethical leadership and the place responsible business has to play in contributing to the common good.  

• Follow the CoBS on X and LinkedIn
• Download this magazine and others from the CoBS website downloads page.

Member schools of the Council on Business & Society.

• ESSEC Business School, France, Singapore, Morocco
• FGV-EAESP, Brazil
• School of Management Fudan University, China
• IE Business School, Spain
• Keio Business School, Japan
• Monash Business School, Australia, Malaysia, Indonesia
• Olin Business School, USA
• Smith School of Business, Queen’s University, Canada
• Stellenbosch Business School, South Africa
• Trinity Business School, Trinity College Dublin, Ireland
• Warwick Business School, United Kingdom.