Right-Wing Populist Backlash: How Bolsonaro’s Brazil Targeted Academics

Universities, akin to the judiciary, media, and civil society organizations, assume a vital role in the preservation of democratic principles. Inability to safeguard their independence from external influences like governmental interventions and corporate interests hampers universities’ capacity to uphold the rights of their constituents internally or advocate for public interests outside their precincts. Brazil is among the nations that have witnessed a notable decrease in academic freedom over the past decade. Instances of political turmoil or authoritarian rule, like Bolsonaro’s in Brazil, have resulted in constraints on academic pursuits and the imposition of censorship.

By Gulsen Dogan*

Why and how antiscientific fake news and discourse have gained momentum in the last decade while academics and scientific experts faced opposition? After the COVID-19 crisis (Galanopoulos & Venizelos, 2022), the phenomenon of populism, dissemination of misinformation, propagation of conspiracy theories, and dissemination of fake news have coalesced into what is known as ‘post-truth populism,’ a concept that disregards verifiable truths and manipulates public sentiment by capitalizing on emotions and uncertainties. The phenomenon of ‘post-truth populism‘ has had the effect of diminishing academic freedom, particularly because right-wing populist movements perceive academic institutions as integral components of the elite ruling class that they oppose. These movements often direct their efforts towards curtailing academic freedom by undermining the independence of universities and stifling the voices of scholars, as academic freedom facilitates the unrestricted exchange of ideas and critical analysis, elements that have the potential to challenge the narratives and policies put forth by these groups (Ignatieff, 2018).

The decline in academic freedom on a global scale, as indicated by the Freedom House Report (Prelec et al., 2020), is attributed to the oppression and arrest of academics and students for their research endeavors. Moreover, there has been a notable increase in the implementation of the corporate governance model within universities worldwide. This shift can be linked to the growing influence of private enterprises’ agendas on the research activities pursued by academics, particularly in light of the proliferation of neoliberal policies. The transformation of knowledge into a techno-scientific paradigm has been observed, accompanied by the dominance of a narrow culture of expertise in the era of neoliberalism. Consequently, there has been a reduction in the financial and institutional independence of universities, leading to greater collaboration with governmental bodies and a subsequent constriction of the space for freedom of expression and critical thinking.

Brazil is among the nations that have witnessed a notable decrease in academic freedom over the past decade (V-DEM, 2024). The contemporary discourse on educational policy involves a variety of stakeholders such as NGOs, political consultative bodies, and lobbyists in the legislative branch, signaling a transition from conventional participants to a more heterogeneous group of actors (Miceli, 2018). Constitutionally, there exist provisions for academic freedom, enabling universities to function independently in their educational, research, and outreach endeavors (Miceli, 2018). However, instances of political turmoil or authoritarian rule have resulted in constraints on academic pursuits and the imposition of censorship. 

Primarily, individuals aligned with right-wing populism tend to portray scientists and experts as members of a corrupt elite, juxtaposing them with the virtuous “people” (Bellolio, 2024). This group tends to censor “truth” and scientific knowledge, preferring conspiracy theories while harboring distrust towards scholars and academic institutions (Haltinner& Sarathchandra, 2020). Notably, there is a tendency to overlook social sciences and humanities by providing limited funding opportunities and imposing constraints on research topics and publications to diminish diversity of thought and promote uniformity in ideas (EPRS, 2023; Folha De S. Paulo, 2022). The spread of misinformation through social media platforms has further rationalized the targeted harassment faced by state universities during Bolsonaro’s administration (Ares et al. 2022). Particularly during the COVID-19 crisis, there was an upsurge in disinformation and fake news disseminated through Brazilian media channels and platforms like WhatsApp, which exacerbated the divide between populist narratives and scientific discourse (Pereira & de Oliveira, 2024; Batista de Oliveira et al., 2022; Gagnon-Dufresne et al., 2023).

Secondly, right-wing populist administrations have emerged as regulatory mechanisms for the content disseminated, studied, and debated within academic institutions. Authorities tend to utilize universities and research institutions to advance their own political agendas. The content of academic research is supervised, subject to censorship to some degree, and is heavily reliant on the approval of those in power. Additionally, extracurricular activities and the selection of guest speakers on campus are scrutinized, thereby restricting the scope for independent thinking. Moreover, individuals offering critical evaluations on topics such as the global health crisis and authoritarian governance risk facing legal action. Those who engage in such critiques may face expulsion from academic institutions. Similarly, Bolsonaro’s opposition to public universities entailed unconstitutional government interference, financial cutbacks, and the targeting of dissenters, all of which propagated a conservative right-wing outlook and challenged the prevailing left-leaning cultural dominance within public higher education (Fiori & Fiori Arantes, 2023). The reductions in funding were linked to neoliberal policies aimed at commercializing social benefits, undermining the public education system established by the Federal Constitution of 1988, consequently leading to direct interference in the appointment of university leadership and a disregard for the preferences of the academic community in financial, administrative, and political matters (Lima & Iamamoto, 2022; Honorato & Souza, 2023).

Figure 1 compares the independence of institutions from the government control and measures the extent of universities ability to establish their own policies for education and research in Brazil. Figure 1 illustrates the level of autonomy of institutions in Brazil from governmental influence, as well as the capacity of universities to formulate their own regulations regarding education and research. Brazilian universities exhibit a moderate degree of autonomy. The level of autonomy remained relatively consistent between 2010 and approximately 2018. However, there has been a notable decrease in autonomy after 2018, particularly evident from around 2022. This trend indicates a substantial decrease in institutional autonomy, potentially signaling alterations in policies, financial support, or administrative authority affecting universities in Brazil.

In Figure 2, the academic freedom also shows a consistent yet modest level across the timeframe, implying persistent restrictions in this domain. There is a gradual decrease observed until 2020, succeeded by a notable increase in 2021 regarding freedom of academic expression and dissemination. It is at times susceptible to constraints such as censorship, self-restraint, or other forms of limitation. The abrupt rebound after 2022 might suggest alterations in policies or transformations within the academic sphere in Brazil subsequent to the election of President Lula.

Universities, akin to the judiciary, media, and civil society organizations, assume a vital role in the preservation of democratic principles. Inability to safeguard their independence from external influences like governmental interventions and corporate interests hampers universities’ capacity to uphold the rights of their constituents internally or advocate for public interests outside their precincts (Valiverronen & Saikkonen, 2021). The discussion heavily involves social media platforms, which enable the fast proliferation of anti-intellectual content. Social media‘s growth has enabled Artificial Intelligence (AI) to produce content that closely resembles authentic material. Utilizing these platforms, populists formulate and disseminate “fake news,” often distorting or twisting expert insights to suit their motives (Hameleers,2022). This phenomenon points out the rising power of misinformation and strategic utilization of social media platforms to influence public conversations, frequently fostering division and eroding trust in scientific knowledge and democratic values in the era of “post-truth populism.”

(*) Gulsen Dogan is a Ph.D. candidate in Political Science and International Relations at Koc University in Istanbul, Turkey. She earned her M.A. in International Relations from Koc University, where her thesis focused on the institutional and ideological conditions for executive aggrandizement in Turkey and Brazil over the past decade. Her research interests include populism, democratic backsliding, political economy, governance, political parties, migration diplomacy, and disaster diplomacy. Geographically, her work focuses on Turkey, Brazil, and the European Union. Currently, Dogan is a project researcher at MiReKoc (Migration Research Center at Koc University) for the Horizon Europe Twinning project: BROAD-ER (Bridging the Migration and Urban Studies Nexus).

References

— (2022). “Maioria dos indicadores piora após 2 anos e meio de Bolsonaro e com pandemia.” Folha De S. Paulo. August 21, 2022. https://www1.folha.uol.com.br/poder/2021/08/maioria-dos-indicadores-piora-apos-2-anos-e-meio-de-bolsonaro-e-com-pandemia.shtml (accessed on August 12, 2024).  

— (2023). EP Academic Freedom Monitor 2023. EPRS. https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/STUD/2024/757798/EPRS_STU(2024)757798_EN.pdf

— (2024). V-DEM Academic Freedom Index Update 2024.  https://academic-freedom-index.net/research/Academic_Freedom_Index_Update_2024.pdf

Ares, G.; Villen, G.; Caira Gitahy, L. M. & Tessler, L. R. (2022). “Memória e desinformação: Os ataques da extrema-direita às universidades públicas brasileiras.” Relações Internacionais, 73, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.23906/ri2022.73a05

Batista de Oliveira, M.; Said Vieira M.; Synesio Alves Monteiro, M. & Akerman, M. (2022). “Covid-19 en Brasil: Controversias políticas por las medidas de aislamiento social para controlar la pandemia. ¿Una disputa entre ciencia y anticiencia?” Razón Y Palabra, 26(114).

Bellolio, C. (2024). “An inquiry into populism’s relation to science.” Politics (Manchester, England), 44(3), 486–500. https://doi.org/10.1177/02633957221109541

Fiori, J. & Fiori Arantes, P. (2023). “Brazil’s Cultural Battleground: Public Universities and the New Right.” Latin American Perspectives, 50(1), 197–217. https://doi.org/10.1177/0094582X221147594

Gagnon-Dufresne, M.-C.; Azevedo Dantas, M.; Abreu Silva, K.; Souza Dos Anjos, J.; Pessoa Carneiro Barbosa, D.; Porto Rosa, R.; de Luca, W.; Zahreddine, M.; Caprara, A.; Ridde, V. & Zinszer, K. (2023). “Social Media and the Influence of Fake News on Global Health Interventions: Implications for a Study on Dengue in Brazil.” International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 20(7), 5299-. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph20075299

Galanopoulos, A. & Venizelos, G. (2022). “Anti-populism and Populist Hype During the COVID-19 Pandemic.” Representation (McDougall Trust), 58(2), 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1080/00344893.2021.2017334

Haltinner, Kristin, & Sarathchandra, Dilshani. (2020). “Pro-environmental views of climate skeptics.” Contexts (Berkeley, Calif.), 19(1), 36–41. https://doi.org/10.1177/1536504220902200

Hameleers, M. (2022). “Empowering the People’s Truth Through Social Media? (De)Legitimizing Truth Claims of Populist Politicians and Citizens.” Politics and Governance, 10(1), 210–219. https://doi.org/10.17645/pag.v10i1.4726

Honorato, D. & Souza, K. R. (2023). “Escolha ‘democrática’ de dirigentes das Universidades Federais Brasileiras: As nomeações no Governo Bolsonaro.” Revista Hipótese, e023005-. https://doi.org/10.58980/eiaerh.v9i00.428

Ignatieff, Michael. (2018). “Rethinking Open Society.” June 10, 2018. https://michaelignatieff.ca/article/2018/rethinking-open-society/ (accessed on August 10, 2024). 

Lima, V. & Iamamoto, S. (2022). “‘Culture War’ against Brazilian universities: how budget cuts and changes in tertiary education policies are affecting the academic community.” Alternautas, 7(2). https://doi.org/10.31273/alternautas.v7i2.1108

Miceli, Sergio. (2018). “Palestra: Intelectuais, mídias e universidade pública em contexto de peleja.” Plural, 25(1), 172–177. https://doi.org/10.11606/issn.2176-8099.pcso.2018.149021

Pereira, F. H. & de Oliveira, R. S. (2024). “Journalists and scientists together: the public problem of science disinformation in Brazil.” Journal of Science Communication, 23(3), 1-. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.23030204

Prelec, Tena; Furstenberg, Saipira and Heathershaw, John. (2020). “The Internationalization of Universities and the Repression of Academic Freedom.” Freedom House.  (https://freedomhouse.org/report/special-report/2020/internationalization-universities-and-repression-academic-freedom (accessed on August 11, 2024). 

Valiverronen, E. & Saikkonen, S. (2021). “Science communicators intimidated: researchers’ freedom of expression and the rise of authoritarian populism.” Journal of Science Communication, 20(4), 1-. https://doi.org/10.22323/2.20040208