Lula Won. What Comes Next for Brazil?

Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva won another term as Brazil’s president, but the election also strengthened the right in Congress. His victory leaves him facing a divided electorate and a difficult governing challenge: responding to demands for change while protecting the social policies central to his support.

Understanding that outcome requires looking beyond the presidential result. During “Brazil’s High Stakes Presidential Election,” part of the DRCLAS Tuesday Seminar Signature Series, four political scientists examined how Lula recovered between the two rounds—and why that turnaround does not necessarily signal a broader shift in Brazil’s politics.

For Fernando Bizzarro, assistant professor of political science at Boston College, voter mobilization was central to the comeback. Lula’s campaign brought people who had abstained in the first round to the polls, rebuilding a coalition similar to the one that elected him in 2022. This time, however, the effort relied less on new endorsements from political elites and more on organizing support from the ground up.

The choice facing voters also changed between rounds. Nara Pavão, associate professor of political science at the Federal University of Pernambuco, described the election as two different referendums. The first focused on Lula’s performance, with economic dissatisfaction and a widespread desire for political change working against him. The second shifted attention to the prospect of the Bolsonaro family returning to power, exposing Flávio Bolsonaro to greater scrutiny and making the contest more favorable to Lula.

That distinction helps explain why improvements in economic indicators did not assure the incumbent an easier victory. Bizzarro and Pavão highlighted the disconnect between economic performance and voters’ assessments of the national economy. Pavão noted that those assessments were more negative than reports of voters’ own household finances, raising questions about how political identities influence perceptions of government performance.

Lula’s success in bringing voters back to the polls also unfolded within a remarkably stable electoral landscape. Fernando Limongi, professor at the University of São Paulo and Fundação Getulio Vargas, emphasized that Brazil’s voting patterns have remained broadly consistent across successive elections, despite changes in candidates, campaign methods, and party alignments. In such closely divided contests, relatively small shifts can determine the outcome.

“I don’t think polarization is going anywhere,” said David J. Samuels, professor of political science at the University of Minnesota. He argued that support for and opposition to the Workers’ Party reflect deeper disagreements over social change that will outlast Lula and the Bolsonaro family. Policies associated with social mobility and expanded opportunities for historically marginalized groups have generated both lasting support and resistance.

For Lula, navigating those divisions will require difficult choices over public spending. Limongi argued that a stronger right in Congress does not make a governing coalition impossible. Brazil’s parties still have incentives to negotiate, and the presidency retains tools to build support. The more pressing constraint, in his assessment, is fiscal.

“The problem is that there is no money,” Limongi said, emphasizing that much of the budget is already committed to existing obligations. The challenge is how to address fiscal pressures without undermining the programs Lula’s supporters value.

Managing those pressures without weakening his electoral support will be a defining test of Lula’s next term. Samuels cautioned that economic difficulties could also make a congressional coalition harder to sustain, particularly as legislators begin positioning themselves for the next election.

The implications for democracy are similarly complex. Pavão pointed to institutions’ ability to constrain authoritarian actors and hold them accountable. She argued that the election could encourage moderation on the right by demonstrating the political costs of extreme positions and their capacity to mobilize opposition.

Samuels offered a more cautious assessment. He highlighted unresolved concerns about the military’s involvement in politics, the accountability of an increasingly powerful judiciary, and conflict among the branches of government. From that perspective, resisting an immediate authoritarian threat does not resolve the institutional tensions that could produce future crises.

Leadership succession adds another layer of uncertainty. The Workers’ Party retains substantial organizational advantages and connections to civil society, but it must develop leadership beyond Lula. The right also faces questions about who can unite its supporters and how much influence the Bolsonaro family will retain.

Lula’s victory demonstrated his coalition’s capacity to mobilize when the stakes became clear. The challenge now is whether his government can translate that electoral strength into policies that address public dissatisfaction within tight fiscal and political constraints.

The discussion was moderated by DRCLAS Faculty Director Steven Levitsky and presented in collaboration with the Weatherhead Center for International Affairs. Watch the full discussion.