Recent events highlight the increasing infiltration of organized crime in Brazil’s local political structures, signaling a troubling trend. Reports suggest that candidates may be leveraging infamous slogans in their campaigns, further blurring the lines between governance and criminal influence.
The response from the Electoral Justice in Rio de Janeiro has raised concerns about the implications for democratic processes. This year, in a controversial move, judges barred candidates suspected of connections to criminal organizations from participating, despite the lack of formal convictions. This raises significant questions about the standards of legal due process, as individuals without a legal ruling against them should not face disqualification from running for office. Unregulated preemptive controls risk devolving into authoritarian practices.
Looking abroad, some nations, despite authoritarian regimes, still conduct competitive elections. For instance, Iran’s Guardian Council, consisting of clerics and jurists appointed by the supreme leader, screens presidential candidates. This year, out of 80 individuals who sought to run, only six received approval to contest in the presidential election.
In a legitimate filtering process, political parties could play a pivotal role. They possess the discretion to nominate candidates without needing to provide legal justifications, focusing instead on electoral viability and public perception. It is reasonable to expect that parties leverage ethical standards when selecting representatives for elections, as endorsing individuals with criminal ties is detrimental to their reputation.
The current crisis in democracy can be characterized as a crisis of curation. Historically, parties effectively vetted their candidates, media outlets aimed for factual accuracy in reporting, and academia sought to ground political proposals in scientific rigor. However, the advent of the internet and social media has diminished the public’s reliance on these traditional gatekeeping mechanisms. While this shift may promote broader access to information, it has also led to greater chaos and potential misinformation.
