Abstract
Brazilian political landscape was marked by protests that simultaneously occurred in various cities in 2013, an unusual fact, given the traditional low rate of participation of citizens in political issues in the country. In this chapter, these protests of June 2013 in Brazil are examined, in light of discussions surrounding the low level of party identification, weak linkages between parties and society, and the history of low levels of participation observed in the country. ESEB, Datafolha, and NUPPS survey data were used, where the focus of the analysis was specifically questions about democracy, political participation, and partisan identity. The results show that participatory culture is still not engrained in Brazilian society, which means the protests of 2013 did not signify a change in the culture of political participation but rather were isolated events in the panorama of participation of Brazilian citizenship. Results further suggest the low sense of representation – as well as the critiques of the quality of public services and the vices of politics – could have been responsible for creating a potent fuel for the protests.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
“The ESEB [Brazilian Electoral Study] is a study linked to the international project Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), coordinated by the University of Michigan (www.cses.org) and other participating institutions of various countries. The CSES project is based on the general premise and thesis that sociopolitical contexts and in particular institutional arrangements that structure electoral dynamics affect the nature and quality of democratic choice. Thus, its principal objectives are to identify which contextual variables, principally those relating to electoral institutions, shape beliefs and behavior of citizens and define the capacity or quality of the democratic regimen through elections; to understand the nature of social and political alignments and cleavages; and to understand how citizens that live under different political arrangements and rules evaluate political processes and democratic institutions.”
- 2.
Research institute linked to the Folha de São Paulo group, which also administers the newspaper Folha de São Paulo.
- 3.
- 4.
- 5.
It is important to clarify that there is more than one type of coalition. One is the electoral coalition, which supports the given candidate, and the other is the post-electoral coalition, which is broader.
- 6.
In the Brazilian case, the exception is the PMDB, which has origins in the MDB [Brazilian Democratic Movement], the old opposition party during the military dictatorship.
- 7.
By “political participation” it is understood the actions of individuals and social groups whose objective is to influence the political process (Avelar and Cintra 2004). In other words, this definition encompasses all activities in which citizens partake that are directed at intervening in the designations of their governors or influence in the formation of state politics.
- 8.
The numbers, although inexact, have been disseminated by the media and serve as a reference (http://www1.folha.uol.com.br/cotidiano/2013/06/1298755-manifestacoes-levam-1-milhao-de-pessoas-as-ruas-em-todo-pais.shtml).
- 9.
This data is on protestors of eight cities (IBOPE) that participated in the protests on June 20th. Other surveys in specific cities or on other days show little differences.
- 10.
Following the academic debate surrounding democratic transitions, the discussion regarding the quality of regiments gained traction. Morlino (2010), for example, mentions three meanings that the quality of democracy can have and that are useful for measuring it: procedures, content, and results.
- 11.
In Brazil, even small political parties have the right to free propaganda time on television and radio, which encourages larger parties to want to form coalitions with these smaller ones in order to increase their total airtime during electoral campaigns.
References
“A Desconfiança dos Cidadãos das Instituições Democráticas”, Survey 2006.
“Brasil, 25 Anos de Democracia”, Survey, 2014.
Albala, A., & Vieira, S. M. (2014). ¿Crisis de los partidos en américa latina ? El papel de los partidos políticos latinoamericanos en el escenario reciente. Política, 52(1), 145–170.
Araújo, P. M. (2014). Bicameralismo e Poder Executivo no Brasil: revisão de projetos presidenciais entre 1989–2010. Opiniao Pública, 20(1), 67–95.
Avelar, L., & Cintra, L. (2004). Sistema Político Brasileiro. Sao Paulo: Unesp.
Brasil. IBGE. Censo Demográfico. (2010). Disponível em: http://www.ibge.gov.br/
Datafolha. (2014a). Índice Datafolha de Confiança (PO813757) consulted on 28 and 29/08/2014.
Datafolha. (2014b). Avaliação da presidente Dilma Rousseff (PO813757) consulted on 28 and 29/08/2014.
Datafolha. (2014c). Intenção de voto para governador de São Paulo (PO813754), consulted on 12 and 13/08/2014.
Datafolha. (2014d). Avaliação do prefeito de São Paulo Fernando Haddad (PO 813751), consulted on 15 and 16/07/2014.
Fernandez, M., Leite, A., & Abad, A. (2014). Representación política y responsiveness en el Brasil contemporáneo. Política, 52(1), 123–144.
Ferreira, D., Batista, C., & Stabile, M. (2008). A evolução do sistema partidário brasileiro: número de partidos e votação no plano subnacional 1982–2006. Opiniao Pública, 14(2), 432–453.
Fiorina, M. (1981). Retrospective voting in American national elections. New Haven: Yale University Press.
http://congressoemfoco.uol.com.br/noticias/o-saldo-das-eleicoes-em-2014/
IBOPE. (2014) See the complete research of IBOPE on the protests, available at: http://g1.globo.com/brasil/noticia/2013/06/veja-integra-da-pesquisa-do-ibope-sobre-os-manifestantes.html. Aseso en 01/12/2014.
Mainwaring, S., & Shugart, M. S. (1997). Conclusion: Presidentialism and the Party System. In S. Mainwaring & M. S. Shugart (Eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin AmericaPresidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Mair, P. (2003). Os partidos políticos e a democracia. Análise Social, 38(167), 277–293.
Montero, J. R., Gunther, R., & Linz, J. J. (2007). Partidos Políticos viejos conceptos y nuevos retos. Editorial Trotta: Madrid.
Morlino, L. (2010) Teoria da Democratização, Qualidade da Democracia e Pesquisa de Opinião: Ainda em ‘Mesas Separadas’. In: J. A. Moisés (org), Democracia e Confiança: Por que os Cidadãos Desconfiam das Instituições Públicas? São Paulo: Edusp.
Paiva, D., & Torouco, G. (2011). Voto e identificação partidária: os partidos brasileiros e a preferência dos eleitores. Opinião Pública, 17(2), 426–451.
Samuels, D., & Zucco, C. (2013). The power of partisanship in Brazil: Evidence from survey experiments. American Journal of Political Science, 58(1), 212–225.
Sartori, G. (1982). Partidos e Sistemas Partidários. Brasília: Ediçoes UnB.
Singer, A. (2013). Brasil, Junho de 2013: Classes e Ideologias Cruzadas. Novos Estudos Cebrap, (97), 23–40.
Tarrow, S. (1997). El poder en movimiento. Madrid: Alianza.
Veiga, L. (2007). Os partidos brasileiros na perspectiva dos eleitores: mudanças e continuidades na identificação partidária e na avaliação das principais legendas após 2002. Opinião Pública, 13(2), 340–365.
Vieira, S. M. (2012). O partido da social democracia brasileira: trajetória e ideologia. Tese de doutorado, IESP/UERJ.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Vieira, S.M., Fernandez, M., Mesquita, N.C. (2018). Representatives and the Represented: Political Parties, Participation, and the Brazilian Protests in 2013. In: Albala, A. (eds) Civil Society and Political Representation in Latin America (2010-2015). Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67801-6_2
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-67801-6_2
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-67800-9
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-67801-6
eBook Packages: Social SciencesSocial Sciences (R0)