Berkley Center

This past election season was one of the most exciting in Brazilian history. After a leading presidential candidate, Eduardo Campos, died in a tragic plane crash only months before the election, he was replaced by his running mate Marina Silva. Silva’s entrance into the presidential arena shook up the elections, as she was an intelligent woman from an impoverished background, but the novelty of this new candidate soon wore off. Marina was eliminated in the first round, and the run-off election came down to the two leading candidates, Aécio Neves of the Brazilian Social Democratic Party and the incumbent, Dilma Rousseff, of the Worker’s Party.

While there were many voters who were clear Rousseff or Neves supporters, many Brazilians remained undecided just days before the elections. This is partly because voters were simply dissatisfied with both of their remaining options. Dissatisfied or not, all citizens had to head to the polls on Election Day, as voting in Brazil is mandatory.

Just because everyone votes, however, does not mean everyone picks a candidate. Brazilians are obligated to cast a ballot, but they are offered the option of using that ballot to abstain from voting for a candidate for any or all of the available positions. In other words, Brazilians cannot choose not to vote, but they can choose to vote for no one.

As I recently found out, many do. About 21 percent of the population abstained from voting in the past presidential election, a record-breaking number. Considering the closeness of this year’s election—Rousseff won by around three percent—one cannot help but wonder if those null votes would have changed the outcome of the race. This got me thinking, if you are required to vote, why not pick a candidate? Why not choose the lesser of the two evils, rather than leave the choice to everyone else?

It is less taboo in Brazil to talk about politics in public, so I had no problem asking people who abstained why they did so. The most common response was because they did not want to demonstrate their support for either candidate, given that they were unhappy with both. One student claimed that it would be irresponsible of him to voluntarily place someone whom he did not trust in control of his country. He simply could not bring himself to do it.

In light of these conversations, I came to realize that the high percentage of abstention in the most recent elections was, in many cases, a form of protest or resistance. It was a very democratic vote of no confidence in the Brazilian democracy. Some Brazilians seem to be asking, if there are no good choices, do you really have a choice at all?

The high level of abstention and general discontent of the population in the wake of this election has significance for Rousseff and the Worker’s Party, as well as for Brazilian government in general. Given the closeness of the race and the number of utterly disappointed voters, the Worker’s Party by no means has a mandate to rule. Despite the re-election of the ruling party, which has already been in control for 12 years, I believe the Brazilian population does want to see significant change in the way their country is run. They are dissatisfied with the corruption, the education system, the social benefits programs, economic growth, and much more. Rousseff has her work cut out for her if she wants to restore her people’s faith in the government. However this does not mean that other political parties can sit back and watch for the next four years. They should learn from Rousseff’s mistakes and their own, and reform their ideas accordingly. Hopefully by the next election season, more Brazilians will feel like the have a real choice when they head to the polls.