In Brazil’s 2026 presidential election, left-wing candidate Lula successfully staged a comeback in the second round after trailing right-wing candidate Flávio Bolsonaro in the first round, defeating him and winning the presidency. This marks the fourth time Lula has been elected president of Brazil.
ㅤ
In 2022, Lula defeated Jair Bolsonaro (Flávio Bolsonaro’s father). I wrote a commentary article at the time. The 2026 election is similar to the 2022 election in both its background and implications. Both reflect the divisions within Brazilian society, and Lula’s victories in both elections represent victories for democracy and progress. I am publishing my old article once again.
ㅤ
Lula’s Return in the 2022 Election: A Victory for Democracy and Progress in Brazil
ㅤ
On October 30, the results of Brazil’s 2022 presidential election were announced. Lula, the candidate jointly nominated by the left-wing coalition, defeated incumbent President Bolsonaro, who was supported by the right, by a narrow margin of less than 2%, and was elected the next president of Brazil.
ㅤ
Lula previously served two terms as president of Brazil from 2003 to 2010. His victory in this election means that Lula has returned to the presidency after 12 years, and also marks the return to power of Brazil’s left-wing forces after their removal from office in 2016 and electoral defeat in 2018. The defeat of Bolsonaro, known as the “Tropical Trump,” represents a major setback for the right wing in Brazil and Latin America. As Brazil is the largest country in Latin America and one of the world’s major powers, this election also has enormous implications for global politics, economics, ecology, ideology, and the international order.
ㅤ
This election can be described as a decisive confrontation between Brazil’s progressive left-wing forces and conservative right-wing forces, a historic choice by the Brazilian people concerning “where Brazil should go.” The election results reflect not only the victory of progressive forces but also the division of Brazilian public opinion. The electoral outcome of 50.9% to 49.1% demonstrates that approximately half of voters still supported Bolsonaro’s positions and agreed with his reelection.
ㅤ
And anyone familiar with Bolsonaro himself and his positions will understand how this support reflects the rampant influence and strength of Brazil’s right-wing populist and even far-right, broadly fascist forces.
ㅤ
While Bolsonaro’s positions on economic issues may still fall within the traditional right-wing spectrum, his attitudes toward political and social issues are extremely “politically incorrect.” He has openly praised the authoritarian rule of Brazil’s former military government, which had previously been thoroughly condemned and discredited, and expressed disdain for democratic politics and a pluralistic society. He has openly disparaged women, homosexuals, Black Brazilians, and Indigenous peoples, and sought to repeal legislation protecting the rights of these groups enacted under left-wing governments. Bolsonaro also presents himself as a devout evangelical Christian, claiming that “those who do not believe in God should all die.”
ㅤ
Yet it was precisely such a figure who was elected president in the 2018 election with 55% of the vote. After taking office, he overturned the progressive policies of the Workers’ Party governments under Dilma Rousseff and, earlier, Lula, implementing a series of measures that were anti-human rights, anti-diversity, and anti-democratic.
ㅤ
According to a Reuters report citing Human Rights Watch, the Bolsonaro government introduced various legislative measures that deprived Indigenous peoples of their rights to own and control land, while legalizing mining and logging on those lands. This also triggered an environmental crisis, causing ecological deterioration in many natural areas that should have been protected, including the Amazon rainforest, known as the “lungs of the Earth,” as a result of excessive mining and deforestation, thereby harming both Brazil and the world.
ㅤ
Bolsonaro also tolerated and even encouraged violent law enforcement by the police. In 2020, Brazil recorded the highest number of deaths caused by police violence in its history, with Black people accounting for 80% of the victims. At the same time, the Bolsonaro government also persecuted political opponents through criminal proceedings.
ㅤ
After the coronavirus spread around the world, including in Brazil, the Bolsonaro government refused to acknowledge the dangers of COVID-19 and refused to use scientific methods to combat the virus. Instead, it believed and promoted conspiracy theories such as “the virus is fabricated” and “vaccines cause illness.” As a result, large numbers of Brazilians became infected and died in the near-total absence of preventive and control measures, and the economy also suffered a severe blow.
ㅤ
Nevertheless, Bolsonaro generally adhered to the democratic order and did not use illegal means, such as a military coup, to overthrow the democratic system. Political opposition forces, including feminists and LGBT groups, were still able to conduct public activities and criticize the Bolsonaro government.
ㅤ
Moreover, Bolsonaro’s measures of sacrificing environmental protection in exchange for economic development and abandoning the defense of human rights in favor of strengthening public security did indeed achieve certain results. During Bolsonaro’s four years in office, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, Brazil’s economy continued to grow, with increases in both industrial and agricultural output. Strengthening police powers to combat crime also led to noticeable declines in the rates of crimes such as murder, rape, and robbery.
ㅤ
However, these limited achievements were clearly built upon violations of human rights, harm to minority groups, and destruction of the ecological environment. Like the Trump administration in the United States, the Modi government in India, the Erdoğan government in Turkey, and the Orbán government in Hungary, they all came to power through democratic elections but employed methods resembling those of dictators. While satisfying the demands of some voters, they did not hesitate to harm the interests of other groups, especially vulnerable and marginalized populations. For the sake of their countries’ short- and medium-term development, they were willing to sacrifice long-term interests and disregard global concerns.
ㅤ
During Bolsonaro’s presidency, women’s rights, LGBT rights, and Indigenous rights were all violated. Although the rights advocacy and movements of various vulnerable groups did not face direct violence or complete prohibition, there was a clear regression compared with the periods when left-wing leaders such as Lula were in power. The Bolsonaro government also refused to cooperate with other political factions, including left-wing forces, acted arbitrarily by exploiting its monopoly over executive power, and even attacked relatively neutral judicial institutions, thereby damaging democracy.
ㅤ
It was under these circumstances that Brazil entered the 2022 election. Bolsonaro’s opponent was none other than former President Lula, whose positions and policies were completely opposite to his. Lula came from an ordinary family and began working while still a teenager, gaining a deep understanding of the hardships faced by ordinary people. Later, Lula participated in the labor movement and was arrested. He gradually entered politics, became the leader of Brazil’s Workers’ Party, and struggled against the Brazilian military government of the time. From 1989 onward, Lula ran for president several times, finally winning the presidency in 2003 and successfully securing reelection in 2006, serving for eight years.
ㅤ
During his presidency, Lula vigorously promoted programs aimed at “eradicating poverty,” raised the level of social security and public welfare, and improved the lives of the poor, for example by constructing affordable housing, providing subsidies to impoverished families and students, and improving agricultural infrastructure. Having come from a working-class background, Lula naturally also strongly supported the labor movement and worked to improve workers’ rights. As a left-wing democrat, Lula also firmly supported the feminist movement, the LGBT rights movement, and the civil rights movements of Indigenous peoples and Black people. He contributed significantly to efforts concerning women’s freedom to obtain abortions, the legalization of same-sex marriage, and Indigenous land ownership. Lula also attached great importance to environmental protection, issuing a series of decrees prohibiting excessive mining and logging and protecting the Amazon rainforest. As a democracy activist who grew up under the dictatorship of the military government, Lula also firmly defended democracy and political pluralism. Although he did not pursue a reckoning with the former military government, he sought as much as possible to weaken the political influence of the military and far-right forces closely connected to it. Lula’s political style and measures also had a certain populist character, but compared with a right-wing populist such as Bolsonaro, Lula was clearly a representative of left-wing populism.
ㅤ
Lula’s eight years in office can be described as remarkably successful. He transformed Brazil, a country characterized by authoritarianism and enormous disparities between rich and poor, into a democratic and relatively equal country. The rights of vulnerable groups, including women, homosexuals, and Indigenous peoples, received greater protection and development, and society made tremendous progress. However, after leaving office, Lula became deeply embroiled in corruption scandals, which also prevented him from participating in the 2018 election. His successor (and also his student), Dilma Rousseff, Brazil’s first female president, likewise became embroiled in corruption scandals and left office under a cloud in 2016. The conclusions regarding these corruption allegations are ambiguous, but what can be established is that political struggles were involved. In particular, Lula’s arrest in 2018 was clearly intended to prevent him from running for president and confronting Bolsonaro. Those who influenced the judiciary included serving senior Brazilian military officers with numerous connections to the former military government, such as Brazilian Army Commander Eduardo Villas Bôas, who publicly declared that Lula should be put in prison.
ㅤ
Under these circumstances, in the 2018 election, Brazil’s Workers’ Party and the entire left wing could only hastily nominate Fernando Haddad, who had almost no public recognition, as their presidential candidate. As a result, he lost by a margin of approximately 10% to Bolsonaro, a powerful “dark horse” who had benefited from the global wave of conservative populism. This ended more than a decade of Workers’ Party rule, and a far-right politician took control of Brazil’s state power.
ㅤ
Of course, Bolsonaro’s rise to power was not merely the result of scandals involving Lula and other left-wing figures. It was also the consequence of a resurgence of racism, Christian conservatism, and male chauvinism in Brazil, as well as part of the global proliferation of right-wing populism.
ㅤ
After Brazil ended military rule and achieved democratization during the later stage of the global “third wave of democratization,” it experienced, along with many other Latin American countries, a wave of left-wing progressivism that lasted until the beginning of the 21st century, with left-wing politicians and parties coming to power one after another. Progressive ideologies and positions advocating social justice, the welfare state, labor rights, women’s rights, LGBT rights, ethnic minority and Indigenous rights, and social diversity became widely popular in Latin America. However, after approximately 20 years of left-wing ascendancy, although movements for equal rights achieved considerable success, the economies of Latin American countries remained sluggish, and crime rates remained high. Brazil was no exception. This caused dissatisfaction among many Brazilians.
ㅤ
Even more dissatisfied were conservative groups in Brazil, including white supremacists, Christian conservatives (especially evangelicals and fundamentalists), and authoritarians. Just as these groups in the United States were dissatisfied with the American Democratic Party, their Brazilian counterparts were dissatisfied with the policies supporting feminists, homosexuals, and Indigenous peoples implemented by Lula’s government and its successors. Among them, evangelical Christians, who account for 30% of Brazil’s population, were particularly hostile to various progressive positions, regarding women’s liberation, same-sex sexual behavior, and the legalization of sex work as terrifying threats. Many Brazilian men also felt uneasy and even fearful about women’s awakening and struggle and the threat these posed to their interests, and deeply resented the feminist-supporting left wing. Meanwhile, the “identity politics” through which women, LGBT people, and Indigenous peoples participated in politics and pursued rights based on their own identities also stimulated right-wing conservative forces to develop their own opposing conservative version of “identity politics.”
ㅤ
Consequently, just as American conservatives nominated Trump, these groups also put forward Bolsonaro as their representative to run for office and govern. During the election, conservatives also made extensive use of the internet to spread fake news, disparage and slander Lula and other Workers’ Party figures, and disseminate conspiracy theories. For example, numerous WhatsApp groups that spread fake news and defamatory claims about the Workers’ Party played an important role in encouraging many voters who were unaware of the truth to dislike the Workers’ Party and support Bolsonaro. Ultimately, Bolsonaro won the 2018 election. This process was almost a replica of Trump’s rise and electoral victory in the United States, with the only difference being that Bolsonaro’s victory was relatively easier than Trump’s.
ㅤ
During Bolsonaro’s four years in office, on the one hand, he achieved certain results in economic development and improving public security; on the other hand, he violated human rights, especially the rights of vulnerable groups, damaged the environment, and undermined political democracy and social diversity. Evaluations of his administration therefore became highly polarized. It was under these circumstances that the 2022 election became a decisive confrontation between progressivism and conservatism in Brazil.
ㅤ
The election results proclaimed the victory of Brazil’s progressive camp. They represented not only Lula’s personal return but also the return of democracy and a pluralistic society. Looking across Latin America, left-wing forces have won most national elections in recent years, reflecting a comprehensive revival of the Latin American left after a resurgence of right-wing conservative forces. If we also consider the Democratic Party’s victory in the 2020 US presidential election and the Canadian Liberal Party’s continued hold on power following the 2021 election, progressivism throughout the Americas has achieved considerable success.
ㅤ
However, the full picture of reality is not so optimistic. In this Brazilian election, Lula won by a narrow margin of less than 2%, reflecting that nearly half of voters still approved of Bolsonaro’s positions and “political achievements,” and that conservative forces remain deeply entrenched. The vote ratio of 50.9% to 49.1% also symbolizes the divisions within Brazilian society. In the congressional elections held simultaneously with the first round of Brazil’s presidential election, right-wing and far-right parties won more seats than the Workers’ Party and other left-wing parties, reflecting unfavorable public opinion toward the left. Moreover, such a composition of Congress will clearly constrain the Lula government. According to opinion polls, in the upcoming US midterm elections, the Republican Party is expected to make a comeback and capture majorities in both the Senate and the House of Representatives. Meanwhile, in September this year, Chile held a referendum on a new constitution with considerable progressive characteristics, but 62% of voters voted against it, also reflecting a setback for progressivism.
ㅤ
Therefore, progressive forces in various countries should not be overly delighted by Lula’s victory. Instead, they should engage in greater reflection, consider why large numbers of people, including many centrist voters, support far-right political figures, and adjust their policy positions and methods of communication in order to gain broader and more extensive support. For Lula and the Workers’ Party, they must also prepare to face the various challenges of governing and strive to bridge social divisions and promote national unity. The policy proposals Lula put forward during his campaign and the individuals he planned to appoint to his administrative team reflect his attempt to reduce the elements of left-wing populism and radicalism, increase the influence of establishment politics, and emphasize compromise and reconciliation. This is a highly commendable move. In today’s world of severe political polarization, compromise and reconciliation, consideration of multiple interests, and gradual progress are rare and valuable.
ㅤ
Nevertheless, this electoral victory is still worthy of celebration by democrats, especially progressives, in Brazil, Latin America, and throughout the world. Lula’s narrow victory prevented far-right populist forces from continuing to hold power in Latin America’s largest country and defended Brazil’s democracy. It is extremely important for protecting women, LGBT groups, Indigenous peoples, and ethnic minorities, and is also conducive to protecting the Amazon rainforest and Brazil’s ecological environment and slowing the onset of the climate crisis. The forces of democracy and progress around the world must continue to struggle and unite more actively to defend the hard-won achievements of democracy, progress toward equal rights, and environmental improvement, and to prevent the historical tragedies of authoritarian dictatorship and human rights violations from recurring.

(The author of this article, Wang Qingmin, is a Chinese writer based in Europe and a researcher in international politics.)

ليش دول الخليج وعلى رأسهم السعودية تحاول تجنب ايران من الحرب ضد امريكا وتحاول بكل قوتها للوصل الى اتفاقات سلمية!؟

Let’s assume the Democrats win one or both Houses in November. Sometime in January the new majority party holds a vote to enact the War Powers Act AND pretty much cuts off funding for the Iran War. What if… Trump says “ok, they’ve cut the funding for blockading the Strait of Hormuz and all funding for any military action. I cannot put our brave servicemen and women in harm’s way. We’re leaving leaving “ He’ll claim as Commander and Chief his hands are tied, and without funding, the Navy can no longer sustain the blockade that has been crippling the Iranian economy. The IRGC claims ownership of the Strait , declares victory and bans any oil transportation to the US and its allies and sets up a toll for every ship entering and leaving. Oil markets freak out and crude goes up to $150-$200 a barrel. And in Trump fashion, lays the blame and the policy in the hands of the Democratic leadership. I could soooo see this happening! What would the Democrats do? The Iran leadership could give two f ‘s about US politics.
Since the President is the Commander and Chief, there’s nothing they can do to stop it lol ! Europe is burning which means there won’t be much help from them with an international force. If oil prices almost double, do the Democrats still own their positions. As crazy as it sounds, would the public switch the blame ??PLEASE, give me some great answers!
Can’t wait see them.

Many posts refer to the Iran War, or Trump’s Iran war. Considering Trump’s many shifting reasons for unilaterally starting the US armed conflict with/in Iran, beginning with protecting Iran’s people and removing its Islamic regime, to obliterating their nuclear capacity, to crippling their military, to, I guess, controlling the straight, all the while covering up the damage to our bases and forces and its cost to America, he has proven himself pretty slippery on the truth.

Since historians like to give names to wars, I’d propose, instead of The Iran War, which makes it sound like a two-sided conflict beginning with mutually competing interests, it should more accurately be labeled as The Liar’s War.

Considering the similar shifting reasons Putin used for beginning Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, its unilaterally instigated and perpetuated war could also fit under the same umbrella, referring to the conflicts in this period as The Liars’ Wars.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced on X that 80 foreign-linked organizations across 30 universities have been dismantled following research security audits.

Academic unions (AFT and AAUP) have raised concerns that sweeping funding conditions could harm international research cooperation and academic inquiry. Meanwhile, Beijing’s Ministry of Commerce accused Washington of politicizing scientific exchanges, even as both nations maintain channels for trade and advanced AI talks.

Let’s assume the Democrats win one or both Houses in November. Sometime in January the new majority party holds a vote to enact the War Powers Act AND pretty much cuts off funding for the Iran War. What if… Trump says “ok, they’ve cut the funding for blockading the Strait of Hormuz and all funding for any military action. I cannot put our brave servicemen and women in harm’s way. We’re leaving leaving “ He’ll claim as Commander and Chief his hands are tied, and without funding, the Navy can no longer sustain the blockade that has been crippling the Iranian economy. The IRGC claims ownership of the Strait , declares victory and bans any oil transportation to the US and its allies and sets up a toll for every ship entering and leaving. Oil markets freak out and crude goes up to $150-$200 a barrel. And in Trump fashion, lays the blame and the policy in the hands of the Democratic leadership. I could soooo see this happening! What would the Democrats do? The Iran leadership could give two f ‘s about US politics.
Since the President is the Commander and Chief, there’s nothing they can do to stop it lol ! Europe is burning which means there won’t be much help from them with an international force. If oil prices almost double, do the Democrats still own their positions. As crazy as it sounds, would the public switch the blame ??PLEASE, give me some great answers!
Can’t wait see them.

Let’s assume the Democrats win one or both Houses in November. Sometime in January the new majority party holds a vote to enact the War Powers Act AND pretty much cuts off funding for the Iran War. What if… Trump says “ok, they’ve cut the funding for blockading the Strait of Hormuz and all funding for any military action. I cannot put our brave servicemen and women in harm’s way. We’re leaving leaving “ He’ll claim as Commander and Chief his hands are tied, and without funding, the Navy can no longer sustain the blockade that has been crippling the Iranian economy. The IRGC claims ownership of the Strait , declares victory and bans any oil transportation to the US and its allies and sets up a toll for every ship entering and leaving. Oil markets freak out and crude goes up to $150-$200 a barrel. And in Trump fashion, lays the blame and the policy in the hands of the Democratic leadership. I could soooo see this happening! What would the Democrats do? The Iran leadership could give two f ‘s about US politics.
Since the President is the Commander and Chief, there’s nothing they can do to stop it lol ! Europe is burning which means there won’t be much help from them with an international force. If oil prices almost double, do the Democrats still own their positions. As crazy as it sounds, would the public switch the blame ??PLEASE, give me some great answers!
Can’t wait see them.

Leaked messages involving a former EU commissioner raise questions about intelligence oversight and possible Russian influence

Hey everyone! We're EUobserver, an independent European newsroom.

Our latest investigation looks at allegations involving Didier Reynders, Belgium's former foreign minister and the EU's former justice commissioner.

We've obtained WhatsApp messages exchanged with Hugues Brulin, a senior Belgian intelligence official.

According to five current and former Belgian intelligence officers who spoke to us, Brulin sought to prevent the security service from investigating Reynders' possible connections to Russia.

The correspondence is now part of a separate Belgian money-laundering investigation involving Reynders. The alleged Russian connections remain allegations.

The case raises a wider question about the protection of sensitive information and the oversight of intelligence services.

When concerns about foreign influence involve senior officials with access to classified information, what safeguards should exist to ensure those allegations are investigated independently?

Let us know what you think :)