[silvestreh]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship. This also applies to Bolsonaro’s government as well. Just because you don’t agree with the ruling party doesn’t make it a dictatorship.

[woooooo]

It's true, judges in Brazil are like gods.

I worked for a (large, powerful) company where our Brazilian compliance people were 100% outside of Brazil to reduce the risk of them being thrown in jail because a judge wasn't getting answers fast enough.

Not sure if those judges are elected but it doesn't really matter.

[rgbrenner]

You should expand on that more if it's actually unreasonable.. because what you wrote sounds exactly the same as the US. The court can issue legal subpoenas, and if they aren't complied with by the deadline specified, the court has the right to enforce those orders, which can include jail time. That's an important tool for the rule of law and an independent judiciary.

[woooooo]

I'm not sure of the exact details but companies aren't afraid to have their paralegal live in the US.

As a matter of fact. I think it would be highly unusual for any corporate official, let alone a low-level case handler, to be at risk here.

[vouaobrasil]

The difference is that in Brazil, the judges very frequently do not act on good faith and are basically easy to buy.

[guax]

You might have been told that but there is no way jail is the first thing a judge will issue. First comes an order, then fines, lots of them. A company will only get anyone arrested if they willingly ignore judicial decisions for a very long time. The only path I see for a company deciding to keep their "compliance" department away from the country would be if they're not planning on complying at all. Judges have a lot of power but they're still bound by process.

Brazil is a conservative leaning country with neoliberal aspirations that looks up to the US (florida specially) like the paradise on earth. Judges are friendly to business and it takes a lot to piss them off if you're part of the circle (rich). These examples from twitter are a niche where the company is caught between the politics of the supreme court and what it sees as threats (some times correctly, sometimes too much and dangerously overbearing).

Supreme court judges are not elected, they are appointed by the president. As a tradition during the years where the current party was in power before Bolsonaro the court itself made a list of candidates that they voted for and the president was asked to pick from the top three (as a request, not binding), Lula and Dilma always picked the top candidate to avoid any showing of interference. President Temer picked the second choice and Bolsonaro picked someone outside the list (twice) and that tradition will likely die down because of it, Lula already picked from outside the list too now.

Another fact people seem to ignore/disregard, the Brazilian STF cannot just issue orders without a request from the prosecution or lower courts. An example where Judges exert the god like power is on lower courts where the prosecution aligns politically with a judge and work together like they did on the Lula trial and ended up overthrown by the supreme court for it. If they do it for someone less popular, they get away with it.

[throwaway918299]

You can vote your way into a dictatorship, but you cannot vote your way out.

[bwanab]

True, but given the fact that Brazil has in recent years voted the left in, then the right, and now the left again it doesn't strike me that a dictatorship has been established.

[stale2002]

Thats why the original poster said " judicial dictatorship" and not "Executive dictatorship".

The judicial branch, not the presidency, is the issue in brazil.

[tankenmate]

Can you quote any analysis (even your own if it's peer reviewed) of how there is systemic illegal behaviour by the judicial branch in Brazil?

[stale2002]

> of how there is systemic illegal behaviour

I didn't say anything about illegality.

Dictatorships can be perfectly legal. Especially if a court says so.

And, given the fact that this is about the judicial branch taking dictatorial actions, almost by definition anything that they decide or choose to do would be legal (As the judicial branch is the one that decides in the first place if its legal or not!)

[tankenmate]

But judges can only interpret the law (legally), they can't author the law. If they are taking dictatorial action that implies executive action, which is not within their remit in most countries (even including most non democracies). If a court issues an order it is up the the executive to enforce that order (for example an arrest warrant). So then to your argument, it would have to be more than the judicial branch in order to be dictatorial, it would also require at a minimum non opposition from the executive, or more likely cooperation.

And so, where is the evidence? Even 3 high impact examples would suffice as a starting point.

[EDIT]; typo fix

[akira2501]

Either the people are suddenly that fickle, or the results are being manipulated, and Hacker News of all places should understand the problem with modern electronic voting systems that require highly competent IT and MIS people to manage and secure. People who we know do not often work for the government.

[vouaobrasil]

Keep in mind that in practice in Brazil, the elected party does not have the same kind of control that the elected party has in Canada, U.S. or Australia.

[yakireev]

Usually you can't, but not always: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1988_Chilean_presidential_refe...

[cryptonector]

That's only because the then dictator didn't want to dictate anymore.

[clarkmoody]

> I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship.

Have you read any history?

[Teocali]

I did. And rare were the autocrats government which came in power from a non-rigged, open election.

Two exemple which are frequently used as exemple are Italy and Germany in the 1930´s but neither Hitler nor Mussolini came in power through the election, but by strong arming the power in place, and after that (at least for Germany) use the excuse of rigged election to validate their power.

[peterfirefly]

Hitler and Allende both gained power legitimately.

They both abused that power afterwards to become dictators.

[yakireev]

In a typical retelling of Chilean 9/11 there indeed was a guy who abused his power to become a dictator, but that was not Allende.

It seems that the story you have is different from the one I have. Could you tell yours?

[Teocali]

I think you mean legally. And yes, yes, Hitler came to power legally. Doesn’t mean it came to power through some elections, which was my point.

And calling Alende a dictator need some Shutzpah. On this point, I think we would have to stop at the « agree to disagree » level.

[ineedaj0b]

Bukele is a large hole in your argument.

[Teocali]

First, I never said than a dictator never came to power through fair and healthy election. Just that it is rare, much rarer than a lot people think.

Second, I would say that the jury is still in debat for Bukele. Yes, it’s re-election is anti-constituai but he seems to still have the support of the population, as the election seemed to be fair and healthy.

But I agree that his legal shenningans to allow for his re-election don’t bode well for the future. Let’s wait and see.

[selimthegrim]

*chutzpah

[Teocali]

Thanks

[baq]

> I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship.

You're a couple votes from becoming a dictatorship in any democracy, by definition: 1) amend constitution or equivalent to allow the vote, 2) vote in the dictator, 3) there is no step 3.

[Teocali]

You forgot all the votes you need to win to be able to cast your first vote. It’s not easy part, at least in a more-or-less healthy democracy.

In France, for exemple, you need first to have majority in both chambers (Senate and parliament) to validate the content of the modification. Then you need to have of 3/5 of parliament OR the majority in a referendum for apr roving the modification and putting it in the constitution.

And for almost every healthy constitutional democracy, it the same order of difficulty.

[squidbeak]

You speak as if institutions didn't exist.

[marcosdumay]

Institutions like the Supreme Court?

[mensetmanusman]

Like states.

[seydor]

> I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship

That's not how it works

[Teocali]

for me that’s exactly how it’s work. For a government to be a dictatorship, you need a dictator. And one key element which define a person as a dictator is that his word is law, that’s in the name. doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now. The second key element, which more implied in the modern definition of dictator, is that it stay in position of power against the will of the majority of it’s country inhabitants. Against, doesn’t seem to be the case in Brazil right now.

I would welcome any elements which would invalidate my (quite incomplete, I recon) perception of the situation.

[ToucanLoucan]

> for me that’s exactly how it’s work.

For history it isn't. Read up on the fall of Wiemar Germany.

[Teocali]

I did. And Hitler was never elected in a position of power. He strong armed the weimar republic to be named in chancellor, and only after that he held some referendum to validate his decision.

Also, when he is named chancellor, it’s been a while since the democratic value of weimar were hurting. Paul Von Hindenburg started as soon as 1930 to govern through executive act, ignoring and/or strong arming the Reichstag. Not really what I would call a healthy democratic government.

Also, Hitler was named as chancellor through a plot of the current weimar government to avoid calling new elections, like the laws said they must.

[InTheArena]

The last point is incorrect - as you yourself note, Hinderburg had the power as symbolic head of state to declare who was to form a government. Therefore, although the Nazis won more votes than anyone else in 1932(the Nazis won 232 to the SDP's 133 seats), conservatives and the SPD blocked it.

[dankle]

Thats exactly how it works. See russa, turkey, hungary now. Germany in 1930s.

[dazilcher]

Brazil's Supreme Court is not "a government elected by the people".

[vouaobrasil]

> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship.

Just to add my two cents, even though it's not a link to documents with proof, but Brazil is a tightly controlled country with very little that is democratic. Yeah there are elections but politics do NOT operate here the same way they do in North America. You've got a lot of corrupt government and even if you elect someone else, they can do very little to make it more democratic.

For the record, I'm Canadian, and I've been living in Brazil for almost two years. When you actually experience it, you feel you are under a system that acts a lot like a dictatorship...or at least something VERY far away from democracy.

[SpicyLemonZest]

The Brazilian Supreme Court, like most judicial bodies, is not elected by the people.

[Teocali]

You know that the case for most occidental democracies which doesn’t follow the anglo-saxon model ?

[skissane]

The "Anglo-Saxon model" does not involve an elected Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom is not directly elected. Nor is the Supreme Court of the United States. Nor the Supreme Court of Canada. Nor the High Court of Australia. Nor the Supreme Court of New Zealand.

The US is unusual in having an elected judiciary at the state and local levels (only in some states, however) – but not at the national/federal level. However, this is not the "Anglo-Saxon model" since none of the other major Anglosphere countries do that.

[Teocali]

Thanks for the clarification.

[robswc]

>I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship

Seems dictators get voted into power more often than not...

[immibis]

> I don’t see how a government elected by the people can be considered a dictatorship.

The people elected Adolf Hitler, who promptly changed the law to prevent himself being unelected.

[Teocali]

No. That’s factually false.

Hitler was named chancellor of the weimar republic by the government. Not elected as such.

And it was part of a plot from the weimar government to be able to continue to work without casting new elections, as asked by the laws.

[cryptonector]

He was a member of their parliament.

[Teocali]

Didn’t find any source on that. He ran for presidential mandate in 1932 and lost against Hindeburg. But never won an election for the Reichstag.

But I agree that, if it he had run, he would have win, as the NSDAP was the leading party in Reichstag at the time.

[cryptonector]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_(Nazi_Germany)

says

> Finally, there were 855 deputies; Adolf Hitler was No. 433, elected to the Reichstag constituency 24 Upper Bavaria – Swabia.