Seeing footage of the attack on Brazilian institutions can spark a strong sense of déjà vu. The contrast between grandeur and danger sticks in the mind, much like the images that remain on the retina from earlier turmoil. The event of January 6, 2021, when a crowd aligned with political extremists stormed the Capitol in Washington, remains a stark reminder of how democratic institutions can be challenged when confidence in the electoral process is fractured. The two episodes share unsettling parallels: large gatherings, a populist current, and a moment when supporters refuse to accept the outcome of an election. The following sections offer a clear, contextual look at what connects these moments and why they resonated across democracies.
Context
This January 6, 2021, thousands of supporters of the outgoing U.S. president gathered before the Capitol to contest what they perceived as irregularities in the election. The assembly escalated into violence around the building that houses the U.S. Congress, resulting in multiple casualties and numerous injuries. Law enforcement faced a sudden surge, and the situation required immediate action as public safety concerns surged and criticism of the security response rose.
Then, on Sunday January 8, 2023, a little over two years later, followers of Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil breached the National Congress, the Supreme Court, and Planalto Palace. They gathered to protest the result of elections that brought Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva to power. The scene echoed the earlier events, with crowds resisting the outcomes of ballots and supporters applauding their leader as the administration changed hands. The episode underscored a broader pattern of political polarization and demands for accountability from elected officials.
The silence of the instigators
Just as embers still glow, so too do questions linger about those who directed or justified the January 2021 and January 2023 disruptions. In Brazil, acts of vandalism have left marks on public buildings that symbolize democratic institutions. The public narrative framed several participants as resilient heroes by some supporters, even as authorities condemned the violence and launched investigations that took years to resolve. During moments when the presidency remained in effect, leaders delivered speeches that did not fully address the underlying tensions or the scale of the disruption. The focus remained on restoring order while grappling with the political costs of the upheaval.
A broader discourse emerged around the responsibility for the disruptions, with debates about who orchestrated or influenced these events. In both nations, the outcome of elections sparked intense scrutiny and debate on the methods used to challenge results. The political rhetoric during and after these episodes reflected a deep-seated discontent that extended beyond a single vote—it touched how citizens perceive fairness, legitimacy, and the role of leadership in safeguarding democratic norms.
Police responses and accountability
During the Capitol breach, security forces faced a sudden, large-scale intrusion that exposed gaps in planning and readiness. The immediate response involved rapid deployment and crowd control measures, but questions persisted about how well the security apparatus anticipated and managed the risk. The perception of uneven enforcement underscored the need for transparent reviews of procedures and accountability mechanisms. In Brazil, the security landscape around the presidential palace and key government centers was similarly scrutinized as officials evaluated the adequacy of protection and coordination. Fault lines in command and the assignment of responsibility highlighted how crucial it is for authorities to maintain credibility and public trust during periods of political volatility.
As the investigations progressed, both countries faced the challenge of translating findings into reforms. The broader goal was to strengthen the resilience of democratic institutions, ensure lawful means to express dissent, and preserve the integrity of electoral processes. The dialogue around security, governance, and the rule of law remains central to preventing recurrence and maintaining social cohesion in times of high political tension.