In recent years, the global conversation around democracy has shifted from celebration to concern. Once hailed as the ultimate form of governance, democracy now faces unprecedented challenges. Brazil, a country that transitioned from military dictatorship to democracy in the 1980s, exemplifies the vulnerabilities inherent in democratic systems. Corruption scandals, economic inequality, and the rise of populist rhetoric have eroded trust in Brazil’s institutions, highlighting the fragility of democratic norms when under sustained pressure.
While Brazil’s story has been widely analyzed, its relevance extends beyond Latin America. South Korea, a nation often considered a model of democratic resilience, faces its own set of challenges that mirror Brazil’s trajectory. From deep political polarization to mounting economic inequality, the signs of democratic erosion are becoming increasingly visible in South Korea.
Brazil and South Korea share similar histories as nations that emerged from authoritarian regimes into vibrant democracies. Both countries also experienced rapid economic development and social modernization, making their democracies relatively young yet robust. However, their shared challenges—corruption scandals, political polarization, and inequality—highlight that democratic institutions require constant nurturing to withstand these pressures.
Brazil: A Microcosm of Democratic Struggles
Brazil’s transition from dictatorship to democracy in the 1980s was hailed as an inspiring example for emerging democracies worldwide. The election of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in 2002 ushered in a period of hope, characterized by economic growth, significant poverty reduction, and a revitalized sense of national identity. However, the country’s political landscape shifted dramatically in the following decades, exposing the underlying weaknesses of its democratic structures. Today, Brazil’s challenges stand as a powerful reminder that even robust-looking democracies can succumb to internal vulnerabilities.
The turning point in Brazil’s democratic backslide was the uncovering of the sprawling corruption scandal known as Operation Car Wash. Initially aimed at investigating money laundering, the operation revealed systemic corruption involving politicians, government officials, and major corporations such as Petrobras. Among those implicated were former presidents, including Lula da Silva, whose imprisonment on corruption charges polarized the nation.
Corruption scandals like these erode the public’s faith in institutions. As Nancy MacLean highlights in Democracy in Chains, the manipulation of democratic systems for personal gain not only weakens governance but also alienates citizens. In Brazil, the perception of widespread corruption created an environment ripe for populist rhetoric, with politicians leveraging public anger to gain power. This dynamic parallels other countries, such as South Africa during Jacob Zuma’s presidency, where corruption scandals similarly undermined democratic stability.
The impeachment of Dilma Rousseff in 2016 further deepened Brazil’s political divide. Supporters argued that the process was a necessary response to fiscal misconduct, while critics labeled it a coup orchestrated by political rivals. The event split the nation, with opposing factions viewing each other as enemies rather than participants in a shared democratic process.
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt, in How Democracies Die, emphasize that democratic systems suffer when polarization transforms political opponents into existential threats. Brazil exemplifies this trend, with the political divide between the left-leaning Workers’ Party and conservative forces fueling conflict rather than collaboration. This polarization not only paralyzed governance but also set the stage for the rise of Jair Bolsonaro, a populist leader who openly criticized democratic norms.
Brazil’s persistent economic inequality has been both a cause and consequence of its democratic struggles. Despite periods of economic growth, the gap between the rich and poor remains vast, leaving many citizens feeling excluded from the nation’s progress. This economic disparity has fueled public frustration, making voters more susceptible to anti-establishment rhetoric.
Yascha Mounk’s The People vs. Democracy explores how economic inequality undermines democratic engagement, arguing that disenfranchised populations are more likely to support populist leaders who promise quick fixes. In Brazil, this dynamic played out vividly, with Bolsonaro capitalizing on public dissatisfaction to consolidate power. His promises to restore order and challenge the status quo resonated with voters disillusioned by years of corruption and economic stagnation.
Brazil’s judiciary and media, once pillars of its democratic transition, have come under scrutiny for their perceived politicization. The imprisonment of Lula da Silva, while legally justified, was criticized by some as a politically motivated attempt to sideline a popular opposition leader. Similarly, media coverage of political events often reflected partisan biases, exacerbating divisions.
Anne Applebaum, in Twilight of Democracy, warns that when institutions lose their impartiality, they risk becoming tools for political agendas. Brazil’s experience illustrates the dangers of undermining institutional independence, as public trust erodes when citizens perceive that these entities serve partisan interests rather than democratic ideals.
Brazil’s democratic struggles reveal the interconnected nature of corruption, polarization, inequality, and institutional fragility. While the country remains a democracy, its challenges demonstrate how quickly democratic norms can erode without vigilance and reform. Brazil’s story serves as a cautionary tale for other nations, including South Korea, where similar dynamics threaten to destabilize democratic governance.
Parallels in South Korea’s Democratic Landscape
South Korea’s democracy has often been held up as a model of resilience, transitioning from military dictatorship to a thriving democratic system in the late 20th century. Its robust economy, active civil society, and competitive elections have solidified its democratic credentials. However, beneath this success lies a series of challenges that echo Brazil’s struggles. From political polarization and corruption scandals to economic inequality and institutional concerns, South Korea faces vulnerabilities that could jeopardize its democratic stability if left unaddressed.
South Korea’s political landscape has become increasingly polarized, with ideological divides between conservative and progressive factions intensifying in recent years. Major elections often devolve into bitter contests, where political opponents are portrayed not as rivals but as existential threats to national progress. This polarization is evident in public protests, online discourse, and even legislative deadlock.
Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt’s How Democracies Die warns that when polarization reaches such extremes, it undermines the spirit of compromise that is essential to democracy. In South Korea, this polarization risks turning governance into a zero-sum game, where cooperation is replaced by conflict. Like Brazil, where left-right divides paralyzed governance, South Korea must address this growing divide to ensure political stability and effective policymaking.
South Korea has experienced several high-profile corruption scandals that have shaken public confidence in its leaders and institutions. The impeachment of President Park Geun-hye in 2017, following revelations of influence-peddling and abuse of power, was a watershed moment in the country’s political history. While the impeachment showcased the strength of South Korea’s judiciary and civil society, it also highlighted the persistent issue of corruption within its political system.
Nancy MacLean, in Democracy in Chains, notes that corruption undermines the legitimacy of democratic institutions by alienating citizens and fostering cynicism. In South Korea, repeated scandals have created a perception that political elites are disconnected from the needs of ordinary citizens. This mirrors Brazil’s Operation Car Wash, where corruption scandals not only eroded trust but also provided populists with a platform to challenge the establishment.
Economic inequality is a pressing issue in South Korea, with housing affordability, stagnant wages, and youth unemployment contributing to public frustration. While the country has made significant economic strides, the benefits of growth have not been evenly distributed. This has led to growing resentment among younger generations, who feel left behind in an increasingly competitive and unequal society.
Yascha Mounk’s The People vs. Democracy highlights the dangers of economic inequality in democratic systems. He argues that when citizens feel excluded from economic progress, they are more likely to support populist leaders who promise to disrupt the status quo. In South Korea, economic inequality risks fueling disillusionment with democracy, similar to how Brazil’s wealth gap contributed to public unrest and the rise of populism.
South Korea’s judiciary and media play critical roles in its democracy, but concerns about their impartiality and independence have grown in recent years. Allegations of judicial bias and media partisanship have sparked debates about the influence of political and corporate interests on these institutions.
Anne Applebaum’s Twilight of Democracy warns that the politicization of key institutions erodes public trust and weakens democracy. In South Korea, ensuring the independence of the judiciary and the media is crucial to maintaining democratic legitimacy. Brazil’s experience, where institutional fragility exacerbated public distrust, underscores the importance of safeguarding these pillars of democracy.
The rise of polarizing political rhetoric in South Korea also echoes Brazil’s recent political dynamics. Populist leaders and movements often leverage societal divisions to gain support, promising swift solutions to complex problems. Jair Bolsonaro’s rise in Brazil was fueled by dissatisfaction with the establishment, a trend that is increasingly visible in South Korea’s political discourse. Populist rhetoric risks undermining democratic norms by prioritizing short-term gains over long-term stability.
While South Korea’s democracy remains resilient, the similarities to Brazil’s struggles cannot be overlooked. Issues such as political polarization, economic inequality, corruption, and institutional fragility are deeply interconnected, posing significant risks if left unaddressed. To avoid a trajectory resembling Brazil’s democratic challenges, South Korea must take proactive steps to fortify its democratic foundation.
Political polarization, which has grown increasingly pronounced, needs to be addressed through efforts to foster bipartisan dialogue and cultivate a political culture that prioritizes compromise over confrontation. Without such measures, divisions within society may deepen, undermining the nation’s ability to address key challenges collectively.
Corruption, a recurring issue in South Korea’s political landscape, must also be tackled with unwavering commitment. Transparency measures should be strengthened, and mechanisms to hold political leaders accountable must be rigorously enforced to rebuild public trust in governance and institutions.
Economic inequality, another pressing concern, requires targeted policies that reduce disparities in housing, education, and employment opportunities. Creating a more inclusive economy is not only an economic imperative but also a democratic one, as it ensures that all citizens feel represented and engaged in the system.
Lastly, the independence of key institutions such as the judiciary and media must be safeguarded. Protecting their impartiality is essential to maintaining public confidence and ensuring that these pillars of democracy are not swayed by political or corporate interests.
By addressing these interconnected challenges with decisive action, South Korea can reinforce its democratic foundations and continue to serve as a model of resilience in an era of global democratic backsliding.
South Korea’s democratic challenges mirror Brazil’s in both nature and scale, underscoring that no democracy is immune to erosion. The lessons from Brazil serve as a warning and an opportunity: by addressing these vulnerabilities now, South Korea can not only avoid democratic backsliding but also strengthen its position as a model democracy for the world.
Shared Lessons and Solutions
The experiences of Brazil and South Korea highlight a shared vulnerability in democratic systems: the complex interplay of corruption, polarization, inequality, and institutional fragility. While their political landscapes and histories differ, the challenges faced by both nations demonstrate the universal risks to democracy when trust in institutions erodes. Drawing on insights from political scholars and examining the interconnected nature of these challenges, this section outlines actionable lessons and solutions for safeguarding democracy.
In both Brazil and South Korea, political polarization has grown into a force capable of paralyzing governance and alienating citizens. Once ideological opponents, political factions now resemble warring tribes, treating each other as enemies rather than participants in a shared democratic process. This division erodes the spirit of compromise and cooperation, essential to any functioning democracy. In Brazil, the left-right divide between Lula’s Workers’ Party and conservative forces splintered the political landscape, while in South Korea, heated rhetoric and zero-sum politics increasingly dominate the national discourse.
This polarization risks transforming democracies into battlegrounds of confrontation, as Steven Levitsky and Daniel Ziblatt argue in How Democracies Die. To counteract this trend, leaders must prioritize unity over division and foster a culture of bipartisan dialogue. Political systems must encourage collaboration rather than reward extremism, ensuring that governance remains focused on the people rather than partisan warfare.
Corruption lies at the heart of Brazil’s democratic crisis, with the revelations of Operation Car Wash leaving a scar on public trust. South Korea, too, has faced its share of scandals, from the impeachment of President Park Geun-hye to controversies involving powerful conglomerates. These episodes erode the legitimacy of democratic institutions, fueling public cynicism and disillusionment. When citizens begin to see politics as a game rigged in favor of elites, democracy itself becomes vulnerable.
Nancy MacLean, in Democracy in Chains, highlights the corrosive impact of corruption on governance, warning that unchecked malfeasance alienates citizens and emboldens populists. To restore faith in democracy, nations must adopt robust measures to combat corruption, ensuring transparency and holding leaders accountable. Independent anti-corruption bodies, whistleblower protections, and financial transparency in campaigns are not luxuries but necessities for democratic survival.
In the bustling cities of São Paulo and Seoul, the same discontent echoes through the streets: a growing divide between the haves and the have-nots. Economic inequality, though differing in scale and nature, is a shared burden for Brazil and South Korea. In Brazil, vast disparities in wealth and opportunity have fueled social unrest, while in South Korea, soaring housing prices and limited job prospects have left younger generations feeling excluded from the nation’s prosperity.
Yascha Mounk, in The People vs. Democracy, warns that inequality is a breeding ground for resentment, enabling populist leaders to exploit public frustration. Addressing this issue requires more than economic growth; it demands policies that distribute benefits equitably and target systemic barriers. Affordable housing, accessible education, and job creation are not only economic necessities but democratic imperatives, ensuring that no citizen feels left behind.
Institutions are the backbone of democracy, yet in Brazil and South Korea, their independence has come under scrutiny. In Brazil, perceptions of judicial bias during Lula’s imprisonment and partisan media coverage undermined public confidence. Similarly, in South Korea, allegations of media partisanship and judicial interference have sparked debates over institutional integrity.
Anne Applebaum, in Twilight of Democracy, warns that when institutions lose their neutrality, they risk becoming tools for political agendas. Restoring faith in these pillars requires not only transparency but also safeguards to ensure independence. Courts must remain impartial, and media outlets should resist corporate and political pressures to uphold their credibility.
Democracy is not just about institutions; it is about people. In both Brazil and South Korea, the disillusionment of citizens has led to disengagement, weakening the fabric of democratic governance. When individuals no longer believe their voices matter, voter apathy and civic inaction become silent threats to democracy.
As Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson argue in Why Nations Fail, inclusive institutions that actively engage citizens are critical for democratic resilience. Encouraging participation through accessible voting processes, open public dialogues, and stronger civil society organizations can reinvigorate democracy. Citizens must see themselves not as spectators but as co-creators of their nation’s future.
The crises unfolding in Brazil and South Korea are not isolated; they are part of a broader wave of democratic backsliding. Freedom House reports that global freedoms have been declining for over a decade, with countries like Hungary, Turkey, and India facing similar challenges. This trend highlights the need for global solidarity in defending democratic values.
International coalitions can play a pivotal role in sharing best practices, funding democracy-building initiatives, and addressing transnational threats such as corruption and authoritarianism. By working together, nations can strengthen the global democratic order, ensuring that it remains resilient in the face of mounting pressures.
The lessons from Brazil and South Korea are clear: democracy is fragile, and its survival depends on constant vigilance and proactive reform. Addressing polarization, corruption, inequality, and institutional fragility is not just a matter of national interest but a global necessity. By learning from each other’s struggles and successes, democracies can chart a course toward a more inclusive, resilient, and equitable future.
The challenges are immense, but so are the opportunities. Brazil and South Korea’s experiences remind us that democracy, while imperfect, is worth fighting for. Its strength lies not in its institutions alone but in the collective will of its people to demand better and build a future rooted in the values of freedom, equality, and justice.
The Fragility and Promise of Democracy
Democracy, often heralded as the pinnacle of governance, stands at a crossroads. The stories of Brazil and South Korea illustrate the complex interplay of forces that threaten its survival: polarization, corruption, inequality, and the weakening of institutions. Yet, these stories are also reminders of democracy’s resilience and the possibility of renewal when its principles are upheld.
Brazil’s journey from hope to crisis serves as a cautionary tale for all democracies. Once celebrated for its peaceful transition from dictatorship to democracy, Brazil found itself ensnared in a web of systemic corruption and ideological conflict. Its institutions, once symbols of progress, faltered under the weight of political manipulation and public distrust. South Korea, though often seen as a democratic success story, faces similar pressures, with polarization and inequality threatening to undermine its achievements.
Anne Applebaum’s Twilight of Democracy captures the essence of this fragility, warning that democratic systems can decay not through dramatic coups but through incremental erosion. In both nations, the slow chipping away of trust in institutions reveals the dangers of complacency. Democracy is not a static achievement; it requires continuous effort and vigilance.
The challenges faced by Brazil and South Korea are not confined to their borders. They are part of a broader pattern of democratic backsliding observed across the globe. In Hungary, Viktor Orbán’s consolidation of power has eroded checks and balances. In Turkey, Recep Tayyip Erdoğan’s policies have curtailed freedoms. Even long-established democracies like the United States grapple with polarization and institutional distrust.
Freedom House’s annual reports paint a stark picture: democracy is under siege. From the manipulation of electoral systems to the rise of authoritarian leaders, the threats are diverse but interconnected. Brazil and South Korea are mirrors reflecting the vulnerabilities of democracies worldwide, underscoring the urgency of addressing these challenges collectively.
Renewal begins with recognition. Acknowledging the flaws in democratic systems is the first step toward addressing them. Polarization must be countered with dialogue, inequality with inclusion, and corruption with transparency. Institutions must be protected and strengthened, ensuring they remain independent and impartial. Most importantly, citizens must remain engaged, as the health of democracy ultimately rests on their participation and belief in its principles.
Daron Acemoglu and James Robinson, in Why Nations Fail, emphasize the importance of inclusive institutions and active citizenry in sustaining democracy. Their insights remind us that democracy is not the responsibility of governments alone. It requires collective effort—from policymakers, civil society, the media, and individuals.
As nations navigate the complexities of the 21st century, the lessons from Brazil provide a roadmap for protecting and strengthening democracy. The road ahead will not be easy, but it is a journey worth undertaking—for democracy is not just a system of governance; it is a promise of a better, fairer future. That promise, though fragile, is worth fighting for.
