Although Bolsonarism presents itself as a legitimate expression of Brazilian national political aspiration — frequently wrapped in patriotic rhetoric and appeals to tradition — a deeper investigation into its ideological foundations reveals a troubling absence of organic continuity with any established political current within Brazil’s historical development. Unlike other movements that emerged as outgrowths of social or economic transformations, or as reinterpretations of national dilemmas, Bolsonarism does not stem from a sustained engagement with the country’s intellectual or political traditions. It is, rather, a phenomenon of surface — a reaction, not a doctrine.
Its structure more closely resembles a sociological phenomenon than a coherent ideology. It is an amorphous amalgam of grievances, fears, and cultural resentments, often articulated in moral terms but detached from any programmatic or institutional coherence. The movement selectively extracts elements from the past — evoking the 1964 military regime, religious conservatism, and anti-communist paranoia — yet it fails to offer even a minimally articulated national project. Bolsonarism, therefore, is less a political doctrine than a cultural state of mind, shaped by affect and propelled by media spectacle.
Still, despite lacking a doctrinal core, three basic features may be identified as rallying points among its supporters: social conservatism, ultraliberalism, and anti-petismo (opposition to the Workers’ Party). Though disconnected among themselves, this purported ideology expresses a particular vision of national reality — one marked by unconditional submission to imperialism — especially that of the United States —, the privatization of essential state services, and the dismantling of the minimal labor protections enshrined in Brazilian labor law.
Whereas the New Republic became notable for its fierce contestation of the achievements inherited from the Vargas Era — which, since the 1950s, had served as essential components of national sovereignty — Bolsonarism represents the synthesis of ultraliberalism, weakened sovereignty, deindustrialization, and deepening economic dependency.
The image of «lightning in a clear sky» is not merely metaphorical. It captures the sudden, disorienting, and seemingly extemporaneous nature of this phenomenon in the landscape of Brazilian political thought. Though still little known outside Brazil, the history of Brazilian political thought is remarkably rich, ranging from conservative nationalism to authoritarian developmentalism, liberal republicanism to revolutionary Marxism — all of which generated theoretical production, party structures, and intellectual traditions. Bolsonarism, however, stands out as an anti-intellectual eruption, defined more by casual negations than by coherent propositions.
Authoritarian anti-politics. At the core of Bolsonarism lies a profound disdain for representative institutions and a romanticized conception of power as the direct and unquestionable expression of a singular leader’s will. Parliament, the judiciary, the press, and universities are treated as illegitimate whenever they oppose the personal will of the Chief Executive. This is not merely populism; it is a form of authoritarian anti-politics, in which negotiation, compromise, and pluralism are portrayed as weaknesses or betrayals.
Although this posture echoes fascist impulses, it lacks the organizational discipline or corporatist structure of classical fascism. Bolsonarism merely instrumentalizes chaos, undermines democratic legitimacy while benefitting from it, and mobilizes ressentiment as its principal emotional fuel.
Even as it evokes the motto «God, Fatherland, and Family» of the 1930s Brazilian Integralists, it bears little resemblance to the movement led by Plínio Salgado. Unlike Salgado, hatred of the bourgeoisie has never been a defining trait of Bolsonarism. On the contrary: its driving force is submission to big capital, domestic or foreign.
Moral panic and culture war. The second defining trait is the instrumentalization of moral panic. Bolsonarism feeds on the systematic construction of enemies: communists, feminists, LGBTQIA+ people, Indigenous peoples, intellectuals, environmentalists, and all those labeled «globalist» or «anti-family.» This culture war is not a secondary discourse but the central axis of its mobilization strategy. In the absence of an economic project capable of altering Brazil’s dependent structure or addressing its deep social inequalities, the movement shifts the focus to the symbolic field — establishing a siege mentality among its supporters and framing politics as an existential struggle.
Digital populism and disinformation. Bolsonarism would be unthinkable without the architecture of social networks and digital platforms. Its emergence coincides with the global phenomenon of «platform populism,» in which emotional resonance, algorithmic reach, and virality outweigh coherence or truth. The movement operates in what some scholars already call a post-truth environment, where emotional appeals and personal beliefs override factual evidence and rational debate.
This informational disorder is not a side effect — it is a deliberate strategy, tested and perfected through influencer networks, WhatsApp groups, YouTube channels, and Telegram forums. In this sense, Bolsonarism is not only a political reaction; it is also a technological event, inseparable from the means through which it is produced and disseminated.
Bolsonarism and Brazilian political memory. The rapid rise of Bolsonarism raises urgent questions about the fragility of Brazil’s democratic memory. The fact that a movement so hostile to republican institutions, scientific knowledge, and historical truth could attain such prominence points to a deeper malaise. The absence of transitional justice after the military regime — including the lack of accountability for state crimes — paved the way for the rehabilitation of a mythologized and nostalgic militarism.
Figures such as João Goulart, Leonel Brizola, and even Getúlio Vargas — all of whom, to varying degrees, were committed to projects of social transformation — are vilified, while torturers and their apologists are exalted. Bolsonarism exploits this historical amnesia, offering a false moral clarity to a society marked by inequality, violence, and institutional disillusionment.
To understand Bolsonarism is not to concede it intellectual coherence. It is to trace its emotional economy, its rhetorical mechanisms, and its sociological function. It is neither a continuation of Brazilian conservative thought nor a rearticulation of nationalist traditions. Rather, it is a rupture without a project, a revolt of ressentiment in search of meaning, structured around negation.
For historians and social scientists, Bolsonarism represents a paradox: it must be studied not as an idea, but as a field of forces — volatile, contradictory, yet deeply influential. In its wake, it leaves not a doctrine to be refuted, but a crisis to be confronted.
© The Political Crow 
Deixe um comentário