Writer’s Note: For full transparency, interviews were done in Brazilian Portuguese and translated into English.
On September 11th, 2025, Jair Bolsonaro, the former president of Brazil, was sentenced to 27 years in prison. Bolsonaro is a member of the Liberal Party in Brazil—now known as a far-right conservative party following his alignment—and was found guilty of plotting a military coup, among other charges such as armed criminal conspiracy and attempted abolition of the democratic rule of law. All charges are a direct result of his attempt at staying in power following the results of the October 2022 election, where Luiz Inacio Lula, part of the Workers’ Party, a center-left party, was elected.
Due to Bolsonaro’s failure to receive the support of the Army and Air Force commanders, Lula was sworn in on January 1st, 2023. Yet on January 8th, thousands of Bolsonaro supporters stormed and vandalised government buildings in Brasilia. Much like the January 6th Capitol storming in the United States, which Donald Trump provoked, the rioters were found to have been instigated by Bolsonaro. Whether Bolsonaro ends up serving his sentence in prison, under house arrest, or having the sentence shortened, there are divided opinions on the fairness and outcome of the trial.
Similar to the United States’ current extreme polarization politically, Brazil is struggling with political division. Manuela Quinet is in her final year as a student at Degraus Ensino Medio, a private school in Juiz de Fora, Brazil. She expressed, “Brazil is a very polarized country, with two divisions, not just left and right but two parties and two presidents, Lula and Bolsonaro.” This sort of political divide is not far from what we see in the U.S., and the extremities of this level of polarization often result in a tendency to follow a specific leader, regardless of their actions or words. Miguel Ribeiro, another final year student, added, “It’s sad to see that many times people don’t care about the political figure they are supporting, but rather a sense of belonging they have.” Ribeiro thinks “it took way too long for him to be convicted.”
Sharing this perspective, Quinet stated, “I think it’s a fair condemnation, and I think Brazil has been waiting for this for a long time—since his last term—because Bolsonaro did many things for the country that I think few would do in a bad way, which he did.” Both Quinet and Ribeiro agree that, specifically during the COVID-19 pandemic, Bolsonaro was responsible for the mass of deaths in Brazil. “Perhaps out of ignorance or religious reasons, he refused to buy vaccines.” She also emphasized how Bolsonaro led with a lot of prejudice, adding, “His policy is for men, preferably evangelical, religious patriots. I think a government should govern for everyone, not just for a specific group.”
Connecting the formation of her opinion more directly to the justice system, senior Luiza Barbosa said she also thought the conviction was fair, “considering the incitement of the coup on January 8th, which was a threat to democracy, one of the pillars of the republic,” adding, “and we are a republic.” Quinet also stressed the coup attempt, sharing, “If that coup had succeeded, there would have been a second military dictatorship in Brazil. We know that the first one wasn’t good; it caused many deaths and many imprisonments. It goes against any basic concept of human dignity in any country.”
Chemistry teacher at Degraus, Alex Almeida, highlighted that the conviction was fair due to the steps that they took to convict him. “In Brazil, no one is above the laws of Brazilian institutions—no one, not a former president, much less a current president in office. Brazil saw this as a demonstration of strength and sovereignty. You have norms, you have justice, you have rules, and you have a Constitution to follow… You have the duty to answer for everything you do.” While Barbosa stated her support of the conviction, she also expressed worry about how quickly the result was given. “Especially regarding the figure of Alexandre de Moraes, he practically led everything, as far as I know; there was no discussion involving the public or the legislature as a whole.” Moraes is the vice president of the Supreme Court of Brazil and is a relatively controversial figure, partly due to extreme political polarization. He is supported by Lula but criticized heavily by both Bolsonaro and Trump. Moraes, as well as other Brazilian Supreme Court justices, are currently banned from entering the United States, as ruled by the U.S. State Department, due to alleged political persecution against Bolsonaro.
While there seems to be a sense of agreement surrounding the conviction among students and staff at Degraus Ensino Medio, there are also feelings of unease about the longevity of his sentence. Although the sentence is 27 years—and he is not allowed to run for public office until 2030 due to his claims that Brazil’s voting system is endangered by fraud—Bolsonaro’s lawyers are likely to argue for a shortened sentence. Quinet worries about this possibility because “there is still a community of people who support this, and they are not just people who were manipulated, but people who knew it was an attempted coup and agreed with it.” Barbosa also thinks he will receive a shortened sentence. “[Bolsonaro] has a very strong influence over the population, so much so that people are already mobilizing for an amnesty project for him.”
Whether or not you paid attention to the trial as it unfolded, and whether you agree or disagree with the results, there is much to be said about the parallels between Bolsonaro’s attempt to cling to power and the situation with Trump on January 6th, 2021. When any government becomes as polarized as both the U.S. and Brazil seem to be, the question of how strong a democracy truly is becomes even more prevalent. The Brazilian government’s decision this time was to hold Bolsonaro accountable, and while it is likely there will be more situations like this in the future, we can hope that all governments throughout the world will follow through on democracy. As Quinet stated, “I think that regardless of who it is… whoever was elected, democracy must prevail.”
