TH, as the Brazilian Worker’s Party (PT), W advocate for the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro for the January 8 riots

On January 8th 2023, following the defeat of then-president Jair Bolsonaro in the 2022 Brazilian general election and the inauguration of his successor, Lula da Silva (leader of the Brazilian Worker’s Party), thousands of Bolsonaro's supporters invaded and vandalized Brazil's federal government buildings (the headquarters of the Brazilian government’s executive branch, Congress and the Supreme Court) in Brasília. Motion: TH, as the Brazilian Worker’s Party (PT), W advocate for the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro for the January 8 riots

Drexel Open 2023 Round 4 Room 4

DPM | OG | Matt Mauriello
83 | Politics

Youtube link (time stamped) Here
Two things knock out Opening Opposition's argument about why the prosecution will be unsuccessful.

The first thing to point out is that, as CG correctly notes and which OO seems to ignore, there is overwhelming evidence that Bolsonaro explicitly incited these riots. Literally read the news—this is in The Economist. OO is genuinely just lying about Brazil as to what the political landscape actually looks like.

Secondly, in as much as the Federal Electoral Court (TSE) has already voted against Bolsonaro, and Brazil has a relatively independent judicial system where the judges who work within TSE rotate out every two years, it is quite likely that there is a strong case against Bolsonaro. But I'm also just going to explain why, even if this criminal prosecution would happen independently, this is better for your party's legacy. That’s why it is likely that you are going to be prosecuted.

The other thing I want to add is that, even if Bolsonaro didn't explicitly incite anything, he knew that there was a lot of latent momentum that existed to create a riot and fudge the election results even prior to Lula winning. Bolsonaro literally said, "If Lula wins, the election is by default rigged, and we're going to devolve into a socialist hellscape like Venezuela." So, obviously, he was making these inciting statements, and that negligence is still a criminal wrong in itself. Negligence is still something you can prosecute.

Secondly, let's talk about your party's legacy. There are several challenges I want to observe that face the Workers Party right now in the status quo. I’m then going to go through each of them and talk about how we address them and how this empowers the party even if the prosecution would happen anyway and even if the prosecution would be unsuccessful.

The first is that there is latent skepticism that exists about the Workers Party even though Lula won again. The reason is because Operation Car Wash, which happened in 2014, saw Lula accused of a relatively large money laundering scheme through Petrobras, the state-owned oil company. Despite the fact that documents came out later showing that this was an attempt to frame Lula to a significant extent, the reason Lula only won very narrowly is because people were still latently skeptical of the Workers Party for fear of this kind of crisis again and fear of corruption ensuing.

Secondly, as I already pointed out, the Workers Party won on a relatively delicate margin, 55%, so you still need to compete against the Liberal Party to a more significant extent.

The third thing I want to point out is that even though Bolsonaro was barred from running for eight years, there’s still a chance he can run again. The best proxy we can use for this is actually Lula, because Lula was also barred from running for election and imprisoned for a significant period of time but was still able to run again and win.

I'm going to go through each of these three issues in turn and talk about how we address them.

The first is that this significantly dispels narratives that your party is corrupt. Why are people going to be receptive to that messaging and not view you as hypocritical? Firstly, you can capitalize upon the fact that hatred for Bolsonaro is more proximate than Operation Car Wash, which happened in 2014. Secondly, individuals have parasocial relationships with parties, in as much as they have lots of political influence, and as you campaign over time on notions of anti-corruption through advocating for this prosecution, which is the main corruption scandal happening right now.

As a result, younger voters begin to associate the Workers Party with notions of fairness, and notions of anti-corruption and notions of Operation Car Wash fade away to a more significant extent. The response to this might be, "This happens anyway," which is implicit to what we get from OO, but obviously, there is a significant margin here, and you want to know why—because LO hedges the responses to us, and there is not a trade-off. So, even if they are right and there is not a trade-off, you are spending a lot of time dispelling notions that you are corrupt.

What does that mean? You still have the comparative advantage of having lots of really good leftist policies in your platform that people like because of the strong left-wing heritage that exists within Brazil. So, you are able to capitalize both on dispelling these narratives around your party being corrupt and still have your leftist policies.

Secondly, you can champion it as a relative win. The reason for this is that, as we already pointed out, it’s hard to prosecute Bolsonaro for many of the more horrendous things he did in the past, for instance, the explicitly anti-queer and anti-Indigenous policies he implemented and the knowledge that people have that he used his power to manipulate the law. But people still really want to see justice be done, so people are likely to view this as an incidental way to hold Bolsonaro accountable and are likely to celebrate it, in as much as many of these groups, like queer people and Indigenous people, were often disenfranchised from the political system while Bolsonaro was empowered.

The third thing to point out is that we disempower him, as Muzzy very clearly explains. What’s OO’s response? Well, he's going to be a martyr. One, they are literally lying about how Bolsonaro played into the capital riots, in as much as it’s just true that Bolsonaro incited this issue, that it’s obviously true that people won’t view him as a martyr. But secondly, the question is: who views him as a martyr? Clearly, the people who are going to be on Bolsonaro's side, but like 30% at this point are going to think he’s a martyr on either side of the debate.

The differential then becomes the people who notice that this is an issue when it is talked about more in the limelight and associate your party with being one that is against notions of corruption. Those are the people who are going to realize that Bolsonaro is bad.

The other thing they say is that individuals will have negative perceptions of your party, particularly moderate ones. This is untrue. Over 55% of people are in support of this prosecution. Number two, again, as I showed, given that he is guilty of this, people are likely to appreciate that. Thirdly, there are rhetorical ways to package your advocacy in ways that don't get people angry. For instance, you can say something obvious like, "This generates general deterrence, and that's necessary for us to even have safe politics in the first place. That’s necessary for us to even implement the leftist policies that we want to advocate for because we can’t have people in the political system who ruin it." Fourthly, if we prove that you are likely to be prosecuted, then people over time perceive this as the just position, like a decision.

So, how do you weigh this material? One, there is a relatively low bar for this material to clear in the round. It is not contingent on culpability; it is not contingent on you being correct and being the tipping point for this prosecution happening. It is merely contingent on, one, individuals really hating Bolsonaro, and, two, the fact that this dispels negative narratives about your party, and obviously, that's the most proximate interest of your party. Why is that? Because your constituent purpose is to be elected again.

So, in as much as being elected is what enables you to pass the policies that Opening Opposition talks about, clearly, that is the most important interest that you have. But secondly, on culpability, what I already established is that you are both intentional and could have done otherwise. Even if they are right that Bolsonaro merely remained silent, that is an act of negligence, and therefore, you are still culpable for the capital riots that happened.

The reason that you, as a party, care about this principle is because, one, as we point out, and LO doesn’t respond to, you campaign on notions of fairness, you campaign on notions of leftism, on the idea that nobody is above the law. Secondly, this is an actor motion, and this actor is willing to be persuaded by the argument in question. Clearly, this has immense moral weight, in as much as Bolsonaro threatens the very fabric of democracy within Brazil. Therefore, party leaders are likely to be really persuaded by the idea that Bolsonaro is indeed criminally culpable.