Kimberly Von Randow ‘28
Staff Writer
In April, I wrote an article questioning whether Brazil was settling for less in its presidential election, as voters once again faced a choice between two deeply divisive political figures. Now, with the tumultuous election behind us, that question feels even more relevant. Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva has secured another presidential term, defeating Flávio Bolsonaro by a narrow margin. Yet the result raises a question that extends beyond the outcome itself: has Brazil chosen a path forward, or has it simply reaffirmed the divisions that have defined its politics for years?
On Oct. 25, Lula won 51.79% of the vote, compared to Bolsonaro’s 48.21%. While the result secured Lula a historical fourth, non-consecutive presidential term, it also demonstrated just how divided the country remains. Nearly 60 million Brazilians voted for Bolsonaro, showing that the political movement associated with his father, former president Jair Bolsonaro, continues to have a significant following. Lula may have won the presidency, but he has not won the support of an entire country.
This is perhaps the most important takeaway from Brazil’s election. A democratic election is meant to give citizens a voice in deciding their country’s future. However, when political competition becomes increasingly defined by opposition to the other side rather than support for a shared vision, elections risk deepening the very divisions they are meant to resolve. For many Brazilians, the choice was not necessarily between two candidates who fully represented their hopes, but between two political movements they believed were better or worse for the country’s future.
These stark divisions reflect broader disagreements about Brazil’s economic direction, social priorities, national identity and international standing. For some voters, Lula represents the continuation of beneficial social programmes and policies aimed at reducing inequality. For others, the Bolsonaro movement represents a stricter political alternative to the Workers’ Party and its approach to governing. These competing priorities help explain why the election remained so closely contested. Neither side can simply be dismissed as an insignificant minority.
The challenge now falls on Lula. Governing a country in which almost half of voters supported his opponent requires more than celebrating a victory. It requires acknowledging the concerns of those who voted differently and demonstrating that the presidency belongs to the entire population. This will be no easy task, particularly with Brazil’s newly elected Congress having a strong conservative presence. Passing legislation and implementing meaningful reforms will require cooperation with political groups that do not necessarily share Lula’s priorities. His ability to negotiate across these divisions may prove just as important as the promises made during his campaign.
These political divisions become even more apparent when looking beyond the overall election result and examining the different groups of people who supported each candidate. Brazil’s regional divide was particularly striking, with Lula securing a strong majority across the Northeast, while Flávio Bolsonaro performed considerably better in the South and Centre-West. Differences also emerged across religious and economic groups, with Lula attracting stronger support among lower-income households and Catholic voters, while Flávio found greater support among evangelical voters and higher-income groups. These patterns suggest that the election was about more than competing political personalities; it reflected different economic circumstances, social priorities and visions for Brazil’s future. Understanding these differences is essential to understanding why the country remains so politically divided.
In my previous article, I argued that Brazil deserved political leadership capable of offering order, progress and unity rather than repeating the same cycles of division. The election has answered who will lead the country, but it has not answered whether its political culture can change. A narrow victory should not be mistaken for a national consensus, just as an electoral defeat should not mean that millions of voters’ concerns can be ignored.
Brazil’s greatest challenge may not be choosing between left and right, but finding a way to move beyond the constant battle between them. Lula has another opportunity to lead Brazil forward. Whether he can use it to bring a divided country closer together will be a far more meaningful measure of his presidency than the election result itself.
Image courtesy of
Leave a Reply