In 1988, as Brazil tentatively stepped out of the shadows of military dictatorship, a political scientist named Sérgio Abranches ublished an article that would indelibly shape the vocabulary of the nation’s nascent democracy. His concept, "presidencialismo de coalizão" (coalition presidentialism), described a unique and often volatile system where Brazilian presidents, typically lacking a clear parliamentary majority, were compelled to forge alliances across a fragmented political landscape. This mechanism, Abranches argued, explained much of both the successes and failures of democratic Brazil.
Nearly four decades later, Abranches observes with a critical eye as his seminal term is invoked daily, frequently as a pejorative, by a political class he now characterizes as "sclerotic" and "disconnected." In a wide-ranging interview, the sociologist, political scientist, and author of works such as A era do imprevisto (The Age of the Unforeseen) and Raízes e evolução do modelo político brasileiro (Roots and Evolution of the Brazilian Political Model), reflects on a nation at a profound structural impasse. Brazil, he contends, is caught between a deeply entrenched colonial past and a rapidly approaching digital future for which its governance structures are woefully unprepared.
According to Celso Rocha de Barros, the concept of coalition presidentialism is dead. Brazil’s political model has come under strain in recent years, with presidents continuing to be elected without a solid parliamentary majority. During a period marked by weaker administrations (Dilma Rousseff, Michel Temer, and Jair Bolsonaro), the Brazilian Congress accumulated significant power and is now reluctant to return it to President Lula or any future executive leader.
Lawmakers, since Arthur Lira was president of the Chamber of Deputies (2012-2025), are pushing for a larger share of the federal budget to be allocated through parliamentary amendments rather than centralized government programs. This shift weakens the effectiveness of long-term strategic policies and redirects resources toward regional politics, where oversight tends to be more limited.
At the same time, the Brazilian Congress appears increasingly ideological. Lula’s main legislative success has been the fiscal framework, which represents a compromise, less restrictive than conservatives wanted but still requiring concessions from the left. However, the government has faced defeats on issues such as environmental policy, Indigenous rights, and combating misinformation, areas where right-leaning groups resist regulatory constraints.
The ‘Gelatinous’ State and Incidental Rulers
Abranches posits that Brazil’s persistent political instability is not merely a series of isolated incidents but a symptom of a chronic structural condition. He vividly describes the country's party system as "gelatinous" and "amorphous," largely dominated by oligarchies that have skillfully adapted to democratic transitions by embedding themselves within the state apparatus.
"We have a political elite that is completely disconnected from society," Abranches states, highlighting a fundamental schism. This profound disconnect, he argues, has fostered the rise of "governantes incidentais" (incidental rulers). Leaders like Fernando Collor de Melo e Jair Bolsonaro ascend to power not through organic political development but by exploiting moments of crisis, public fear, and widespread social dissatisfaction. These figures capitalize on the "brechas das crises" (breaches of crisis) rather than emerging from a robust, endogenous political construction.
The most glaring manifestation of this systemic decay, according to Abranches, is the emergence and entrenchment of the "Centrão", whichn is a powerful, ideologically fluid bloc within the Brazilian Congress. This group, he explains, prioritizes the extraction and allocation of state resources over any coherent programmatic agenda. The very tools of coalition presidentialism, originally conceived as a pragmatic necessity, have been subverted. "The president has lost his tools because the game is no longer programmatic; it’s pragmatic, depending entirely on budget amendments and appointments," Abranches laments, pointing to the increasing cost and difficulty of governance.
Federalism’s Contradiction and the Oligarchic Grip
A key structural problem, Abranches identifies, lies within Brazil’s federalist system. He describes it as inherently contradictory: states and municipalities possess significant political autonomy, yet remain financially dependent on the federal government. This dependency, a legacy of a "technocratic bias" dating back to the dictatorship, fosters clientelism and incentivizes local political actors to prioritize securing federal funds through parliamentary amendments, rather than developing independent economic bases.
This dynamic, he argues, reinforces local oligarchies and their reliance on a national figure like the president, who can release resources. "This distortion encourages local oligarchization and dependence on a national figure, who will be the one to give us what we need," Abranches explains. This system also contributes to the "amorfo" (amorphous) nature of Brazilian political parties, which struggle to renew leadership or connect with a national electorate.
A Digital Society, An Analogue Democracy
Despite the stagnation and structural challenges within its leadership, Abranches maintains a cautious optimism regarding the Brazilian populace. He observes that while the "industrial patriarchy" of São Paulo and the "old agro-elites" represent significant reactionary forces impeding innovation, the broader society is remarkably dynamic and technologically adept.
"The Brazilian society has no aversion to the new," he notes, citing the rapid adoption of digital banking, electric vehicles, and other technological advancements such as the use of ethanol, biomethane, hydrogen, SAF (Sustainable Agricultural Fuels), and the creation of technical solutions to current problems.
Accordingo to Abranches, "the problem is that you cannot have an analogue democracy in a digital society. They will never marry." He contends that Brazil is currently navigating a "policrise", chich is a confluence of climatic, social, and economic crises that traditional political and economic theories are ill-equipped to address. The path forward, he suggests, demands a profound exercise in "imaginação política" (political imagination).
The ‘Advantage of Backwardness’ and Future Opportunities
From an economic perspective, Abranches identifies a unique, albeit fleeting, opportunity for Brazil to leverage its "vantagem do atraso" (advantage of backwardness). By fully embracing the digital revolution and the burgeoning field of artificial intelligence, the country could potentially bypass traditional developmental stages and emerge as a significant player in the global digital economy.
"The digital revolution restarts the race," he proclaims. "We can build a digital economy focused on AI and cybernetics without waiting for others to define the path." This vision, however, is contingent upon a political will that is currently conspicuously absent. Abranches warns that the "forças reacionárias" (reactionary forces) of the old guard, those who benefit from centralized, bureaucratic control, remain the primary impediments to this transformative potential.
As Brazil approaches its next presidential election in 2026, the message from one of its most insightful political scientists is stark: the old paradigms are crumbling. To navigate the complexities of the 21st century and secure a democratic future, Brazil must transcend the "ghosts of its past" and actively cultivate a future that its dynamic and digitally native population is already, in many ways, inhabiting.
