democracy

On Sunday night, tens of thousands of Hungarians packed the banks of the Danube waving flags, crying of joy, popping bottles. Celebrating something that political analysts had spent years telling them was almost impossible: the electoral defeat of Viktor Orbán, the autocrat whose ploys and manipulations made him a uniquely disturbing force in the European Union. After 16 years in power, Hungary’s self-proclaimed architect of “illiberal democracy” conceded defeat within hours of the polls closing.

His rival, Péter Magyar (the equivalent of Pedro Veneco), had won 137 seats in a 199-seat parliament, a two-thirds supermajority that gave him not just a government, but the ability to rewrite the very constitution Orbán had rigged to protect himself. This appears to be the plan.

Venezuelans watching from afar could be forgiven for feeling two things at once: genuine joy, and a familiar, creeping doubt. 

Sure, but that’s Hungary.

The doubt is understandable. It’s also, at this particular moment in Venezuelan history, worth interrogating.

To understand whether Hungary provides a useful lesson, we need to venture farther than our diasporic links, like La Danubio, Catherine Fulop and Shirley Varnagy. You first need a category distinction that political scientists call the difference between a closed authoritarian regime and a competitive one. A closed autocracy doesn’t bother with the pretense of real elections. Or when it does, it simply invents the results. Especially after July 2024, Venezuela had become exactly this: we all know what happened. Politically, there was no game to play unless you played by the regime’s rules. The game was a charade. 

Orbán’s Hungary was something different, more insidious. Similar to what Chávez did to the institutions in the 2000s, while using hyper-ideological and reactionary rhetoric. The European Parliament had classified it as a “hybrid regime of electoral autocracy.” Orbán bent every institution he could reach: the judiciary, the media, the electoral rules themselves.

The scene on the Danube on Sunday night was a piece of great news in a political era that doesn’t offer many of them. The scenes in Budapest matter to us. But it shouldn’t be mistaken for a mirror.

He gerrymandered the system to favor the largest single party, confident that party would always be his. But he never quite crossed the line into fabricating vote counts, à la Maduro or Lukashenko. The game was still real, even if the playing field was tilted.

That distinction is now relevant because Venezuela’s political reality has shifted in ways that were unimaginable five months ago. The current regime Delcy Rodríguez leads is not identical to that of 2024 and 2025. Under US pressure, a few hundred political prisoners have been released and an amnesty law was approved in February. albeit with mixed results (more than 500 political prisoners are still behind bars, and amnesty has been formally denied to high-profile politicians and NGO leaders like Javier Tarazona). Overall, we see gestures that try to transmit magnanimity, but are moves meant to look like compliance while chavismo waits for Washington’s attention to wander.

But here’s the thing: even performative openings create real cracks, and the cracks are showing. In February alone, Venezuela has recorded dozens of protests, an exponential increase compared to the same month in 2025. Workers and students have taken to the streets of Caracas four times this year demanding salary increases, openly calling on the Rodríguez siblings to answer for their pleas. Last weekend in Valencia, in a football game between Carabobo and Universidad Central (a game which has enough backdrop to make a book about it), football fans directed chants against the son of Alexander Granko Arteaga (who plays for UCV): “¡Dónde están que no se ven, los enchufados de la UCV,” loud enough so it could be hear transmission (that would translate roughly to “nowhere to be seen, the UCV cronies are nowhere to be seen”). In 2025, that chant would have landed them in jail. That was exactly the outcome in the last domestic football final.

Waiting for the opportunity

Venezuela is still not a democracy. But the differences remain significant: a regime slowly, reluctantly slipping out of its authoritarian fortress, coming to terms with the fact that it will eventually have to face a reckoning at the ballot box. That’s what happened to Orbán. He controlled the courts, the media, the electoral geometry, and still got swept out because of the accumulated weight of economic failure, corruption, and sheer exhaustion that eventually overwhelmed the machinery he had built.

The lesson is not that rigged systems are beatable through optimism. It is that rigged systems have structural limits, and that opposition alliances which survive long enough, and build broad enough coalitions, tend to be standing when those limits are reached. In our case, we’ve seen all possible iterations of what an opposition can be. In 2024, the Maria Corina-led movement became the most formidable electoral force the country has seen in a while. That should have been our Orbán down moment. Nonetheless, the inertia we have seen since the beginning of the year is too good to let it slip away.

Political scientist Yascha Mounk, writing about Magyar’s victory, made an interesting observation that some might believe applies to Venezuelan democratic forces: the Hungarian opposition ousted Orbán on its fourth try, after years of humiliation, internal divisions and strategic errors. Patience, he argues, is its own form of political discipline.

This is Mounk’s post-populist dilemma, live, and a miniature preview of what a potential democratic government in Caracas would have in front of itself.

Again, the Venezuelan opposition doesn’t need that lesson. It already learned it, the hard way, and on a harder playing field. In 2015, it won a supermajority in the Asamblea and watched its powers get neutered one by one. In July 2024, it beat Maduro overwhelmingly and proved its victory with the official tally sheets. Edmundo González Urrutia did not become president because the movement backing him lacked organization, or coalition-building, or the kind of credible leadership that Magyar built from scratch since leaving Orban’s party two years ago. González Urrutia failed to take power because the regime decided that electoral results were optional.

The question was never whether the Venezuelan opposition could win an election. They already did in a way that should clarify the terrain for future opportunities. The actas and the popular support are powerful symbols that should endure. The question is whether they can repeat that performance, seizing the minimal opening they have in front of them whatever the broader circumstances. Then yes, the patience Mounk mentions is relevant.

The post-autocracy trap

Mounk is right to poop the party a little bit with a warning he calls the “post-populist dilemma.” Even with his supermajority, Magyar inherits a State that Orbán hollowed out and refilled with loyalists. He has two options: either fire them and bring about an anti-Fidesz purge; or leave them in place and be sabotaged from within. In his first week in power, Magyar is showing he wants to go for the first option. He has already called for the resignation of several key ministers of the Orban regime.

Venezuela would face this dilemma on steroids. Chavismo has had 27 years to embed itself across nearly everything. Rodríguez herself operates within a questionable agency on security forces (a certain someone remains interior minister and vice president for security). Any future Venezuelan government elected under competitive conditions would inherit an institutional landscape far more captured and complex than anything Magyar faces in Budapest.

This is not a reason for despair, but it does require confronting an uncomfortable asymmetry. When Magyar navigated Hungary’s post-populist transition, he did so with the EU at his back, a bloc that had spent years dangling billions in frozen funds as an incentive for democratic reform, and whose membership gave Hungarian voters a concrete, tangible alternative to Orbán’s model. Venezuela’s external anchor is the Trump administration, which has been explicit about its priorities: oil first, stability second, elections somewhere further down the list. Rubio’s three-phase roadmap (stabilization, economic recovery, reconciliation and transition) is not an explicit democratic transition plan. It is a business plan with democracy on the side.

Preparation, then, means the opposition must be the one holding the democratic line demanding verifiable electoral conditions, refusing to let institutional reform become a performance to please DC, and cementing a coalition broad enough that can translate the popular inertia and mood towards a margin so big it can’t be tweaked. The EU didn’t save Hungary. Hungarians did. The lesson travels.

Magyar won because Hungarians were organized, patient and ready when the moment arrived. Venezuelans have already proven they can do the same.

Magyar isn’t waiting. Within 72 hours of his victory, he demanded that Hungary’s president resign immediately, and sent the same message to the heads of the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Court, the State Audit Office and the media authority calling them “puppets who have been in power for the past 16 years.” On Wednesday morning, in his first radio interview in over a year and a half, he told the State broadcaster its news operation would be shut down and relaunched as a true public service. Some are already calling it a witch hunt. Others call it the bare minimum required to transform the country.

This is Mounk’s post-populist dilemma, live, and a miniature preview of what a potential democratic government in Caracas would have in front of itself. If Magyar, armed with a two-thirds supermajority and the EU at his back, is already navigating accusations of overreach on day three, imagine what a Venezuelan opposition government would face trying to dismantle 27 years of institutional occupation in the police, intelligence agencies, the military, the public media, the judiciary. The task ahead is massive, and solving the dilemma probably requires an orderly phase-out agreed before the next presidential vote.

The scene on the Danube on Sunday night was a piece of great news in a political era that doesn’t offer many of them. The scenes in Budapest matter to us. But it shouldn’t be mistaken for a mirror.

Venezuela is not Hungary. Delcy is not Orbán, she is arguably more pragmatic, but also more constrained. Orbán was a standalone autocrat who built his system around his own political survival. Rodríguez governs by a permanent balancing act: between Washington’s demands, the military high command, the hardline faction and other peripheral actors. The competitive opening, if it comes, will be narrower, more fragile and more dangerous than anything Magyar navigated.

These are reasons to take the Hungarian lesson seriously without taking it literally. Magyar won because Hungarians were organized, patient and ready when the moment arrived. Venezuelans have already proven they can do the same. The question now is simpler, and harder: when the moment comes again, can the popular will (and not just the results) be allowed to stand?

House Democrats and a panel of elections experts expressed unwavering confidence in state voting systems and dismissed Trump administration claims of widespread fraud and other vulnerabilities during a special “shadow hearing” in Los Angeles on Tuesday.

They accused President Trump and his Republican allies of pushing sweeping federal reforms — including stricter voter ID laws and new restrictions on voting by mail — that would disenfranchise millions of eligible Americans, especially low-income, rural and elderly voters, as well as voters of color and those with disabilities.

“They are taking us backward, and not to a good place,” said Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), who helped lead the hearing at the Daniel K. Inouye National Center for the Preservation of Democracy in Little Tokyo.

They also stressed that they and their allies were working hard to prevent such backsliding.

“While Republicans are expecting Democrats to just sit idly by as they attempt to steal yet another election, Democrats are getting out in the community, raising the alarm bells about the GOP’s efforts to rig these elections and fighting back in the courts, in Congress and in our communities,” said Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), chair of the Democratic Caucus. “We won’t let Republicans get away with their anti-democratic and un-American schemes.”

Such “shadow hearings” allow Democrats to highlight issues their majority-Republican counterparts won’t schedule for formal hearings in Washington. This week’s discussions — a second is scheduled Thursday in San Francisco — follow others in California in recent months, including on Trump’s immigration raids.

Pelosi, the former House speaker, led the hearing alongside Aguilar and Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, the ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee, which has oversight of elections. Joining them were fellow Democratic Reps. Nanette Barragán of San Pedro, Judy Chu of Monterey Park, Gil Cisneros of Covina, Laura Friedman of Glendale, Luz Rivas of North Hollywood, Linda Sánchez of Whittier, Norma Torres of Pomona and Maxine Waters of L.A.

Pelosi noted the setting on the grounds of the Japanese American National Museum, where Japanese Americans were detained before being unconstitutionally stripped of their belongings and taken to internment camps during World War II.

“To be here on a day when the president of the United States has talked about destroying the civilization of a country is so appalling. It’s so appalling, and I don’t think we can ignore comments like that, especially in a setting like this,” Pelosi said.

She also said that securing the nation’s elections against Trump’s threats and getting out the Democratic vote was the surest way of restoring order to U.S. relations abroad — and far more likely than getting Trump’s Cabinet to remove him from office by invoking the 25th Amendment.

“We have to make sure that the mentality that would obliterate a civilization, undermine a democracy by fighting free and fair elections, just cannot prevail,” she said.

The hearings were designed to challenge a narrative Trump has pushed for years — that U.S. elections are badly compromised by widespread fraud, that mail ballots such as those used in California are a particularly large source of abuse, and that noncitizens are voting in large numbers — none of which he has supported with evidence.

Trump tried unsuccessfully to challenge his 2020 loss to Joe Biden using similar arguments. When he returned to the White House, he immediately directed his administration to pursue the claims anew, including under executive orders he issued asserting new and sweeping federal authority over elections, which by law are controlled by the states.

The Justice Department in September sued California and other states for their voter rolls, which courts rejected. The FBI in January raided and seized 2020 election records from an elections office in Fulton County, Ga., where Trump rejected 2020 results. Trump in February said Republicans “ought to nationalize the voting.” Last week, he issued an executive order purporting to give federal agencies control over ballot processing by the U.S. Postal Service, which followed a previous order seeking to place new federal requirements on voter identification and proof of citizenship.

Trump has said his efforts are “common sense” steps average Americans support to secure elections against noncitizens voting and other threats.

Experts who provided testimony at Tuesday’s hearing roundly rejected that argument, saying the measures address problems that don’t existand are more geared toward securing wins for Republicans than ensuring election safety.

Jenny Farrell, executive director of the League of Women Voters of California, said that Americans are “more likely to be struck by lightning” than to commit voter fraud, and that many recent proposals framed around election integrity are really designed to narrow access to voting for certain groups. She also said California’s elections are particularly strong.

“We’re like the Dodgers of elections,” she said.

Darius Kemp, executive director of Common Cause California, said the state’s elections “are safe and secure,” and the Trump administration is threatening democratic participation in novel and alarming ways that his organization is watching carefully.

Justin Levitt, a Loyola Law School professor, said Trump is trying to project power over elections “that he simply does not have,” and if local and state officials, the courts and pro-democracy groups stand their ground, he will fail.

“If we keep calm and carry on, we can make our voices heard loud and clear,” he said.

Hector Villagra, vice president of policy advocacy and community education at MALDEF, or the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, said “the evidence could not be more clear — noncitizen voting is exceedingly rare,” and Trump’s proposals would simply “raise the cost of lawful voting” for groups already underrepresented at the polls.

“The question is not whether we can verify eligibility. We already do that,” he said. “The question is whether we will impose new barriers that will prevent eligible citizens from participating at all.”

Sonni Waknin, senior staff attorney at the UCLA Voting Rights Project, said “democracy is under attack” across the nation, and that the photo identification requirement Trump and other Republicans are pushing would disenfranchise a million eligible voters in California alone.

When Cisneros asked about what could be done to prepare for the inevitable claims of fraud from Trump and other Republicans after the midterms, Levitt said that such claims must be called out for what they are.

“We call those lies, because they are lies,” he said.

When Waters asked the experts about the effect of federal immigration agents being deployed to polling places, as some in Trump’s orbit have suggested, Villagra said damage was already being done just from the rumors of such action — whether agents show up or not.

“It’s the threat that’s really what’s powerful here,” he said, as people — especially Latino voters — are already intimidated, and leaders should do more to reassure voters and offer alternatives to showing up to polls, such as voting by mail.

House Democrats will hold a pair of “shadow hearings” in California next week on the upcoming midterm elections — part of a broader party effort to defend state voting systems against mounting critiques and threats of intervention from the Trump administration.

Such hearings, similar to those recently held in Los Angeles on President Trump’s immigration raids, provide Democrats an opportunity to highlight issues their majority Republican counterparts won’t schedule for more formal hearings in Washington.

The hearings — scheduled for Los Angeles on Tuesday and San Francisco on Thursday — will feature testimony from voting and elections experts, and will be led by Rep. Joseph Morelle of New York, ranking Democrat on the House Administration Committee with oversight of elections, and Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D-San Francisco), the former House speaker.

Morelle, in a statement to The Times, said, “Democracy’s defenses are under attack” and must be defended.

“We will not let President Trump and House Republicans’ efforts to take over our elections prevail. We’re going to use every tool in our toolbox and that includes working with pro-democracy allies in communities across the country,” he said. “I look forward to hearing about the work being done in California to protect democracy as we fight on the ground and in Congress.”

Pelosi, in her own statement to The Times, said protecting democracy “demands vigilance, transparency, and action,” and the shadow hearings “will bring together voices on the front lines of election security, voting rights, and accountability to ensure that every American’s vote is protected and every institution earns the public’s trust.”

“At a time of rampant threats to our democratic system, we must strengthen and defend the integrity of our elections to reaffirm that our government is of, by, and for the people,” she said.

Rep. Pete Aguilar (D-Redlands), chair of the Democratic Caucus, and other Democrats from California are also expected to attend. Republican members of Congress are not expected to be there.

The hearings will be the first in a while to be led — at least in part — by Pelosi, 86, who gave up her position in party leadership and does not currently hold any committee assignments. She announced in November that she will not seek reelection.

Trump has alleged for years, without evidence, that U.S. elections are undermined and swayed by widespread voter fraud, and that such fraud cost him the 2020 election that he lost to Joe Biden. He and his personal attorneys have repeatedly argued as much in court, but always lost — in part because they could never produce any evidence to back their claims.

Since retaking the White House last year, Trump has continued pushing his baseless claims, and pushed his administration to attack voting systems — particularly in blue states where he has been unpopular.

In September, Trump loyalists in the Justice Department sued California and other states for their voter rolls and other sensitive voter information, but were pushed back by the courts.

In January, the FBI raided and seized 2020 election records from an elections office in Fulton County, Ga., that was the subject of Trump’s allegations of voter fraud in 2020.

In February, Trump said Republicans should “take over the voting in at least 15 places,” alleging that voting irregularities in what he called “crooked states” are hurting his party. “The Republicans ought to nationalize the voting.”

This week, Trump issued an executive order purporting to give federal agencies control over ballot processing by the U.S. Postal Service.

Trump administration officials and allies have also raised concerns that they might send immigration agents to polling locations during the midterms, in part by refusing to rule out such a move in the wake of mass deployments of such agents into American cities to pursue Trump’s mass deportation agenda.

Trump has framed his efforts to end voting by mail — which he recently did himself — and increase voter identification requirements as “common sense” steps to combat fraud that most Americans agree with. A vast majority of California voters cast ballots by mail, including nearly 90% in last year’s special election on Proposition 50, the state’s mid-decade redistricting measure.

Democrats and many elections experts have rejected Trump’s election claims as baseless, defended state-run systems as safe and secure, and said his demands for stricter voter ID regulations would disenfranchise millions of U.S. citizen voters who lack the sort of documents he wants to mandate — including women who changed their name in marriage.

Voting experts say fraudulent votes, including by noncitizens, are rare, and that there is no evidence that fraud swings U.S. elections.

States including California have joined voting rights organizations in suing to block Trump’s various attempts to intervene in state-run elections, including his order last week and a previous one purporting to place new federal requirements on voter identification and proof of citizenship.

California officials and others have repeatedly noted that federal law gives states the right to administer elections as they see fit, and promised to fight any attempts by the president or his administration to infringe on state election powers.

Local elections officials in California have also been preparing for potential election day interruptions from the Trump administration.

Scheduled to participate in the hearings were experts from the UCLA Voting Rights Project, Loyola Law School, the League of Women Voters of California, Common Cause California, and the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund, or MALDEF.

SACRAMENTO — Strong majorities of California voters believe American democracy is under attack and, in the wake of U.S. Supreme Court rulings narrowing federal protections, support enacting a new state Voting Rights Act to prohibit discrimination and efforts to suppress the ability to cast a ballot, a new poll showed.

The survey showed a sharp partisan divide over increasing voting rights protections, with Democrats and political independents overwhelmingly in favor and a majority of Republicans opposed. Fears that American democracy was either under attack, or at the very least being “tested,” were shared across political allegiances, according to a new poll released Thursday by the UC Berkeley Institute of Governmental Studies.

“I think that it suggests that the California voters, especially Democrats and independents, are very worried about some of what they’ve seen going on in Washington, both the court decisions and the Trump administration,” said Eric Schickler, the institute’s co-director. “They see it as threatening kind of core American values.”

That anxiety comes after years of baseless claims by President Trump that the 2020 election was stolen from him, as well as Republican-led efforts to restrict the use of mail-in ballots and impose new requirements for voters to show identification and proof of citizenship.

Trump earlier this week signed an executive order to place new federal controls on voting by mail in states such as California, an action that Democrats called unconstitutional and vowed to challenge in court.

Schickler said Republican concerns about the fate of American democracy may stem in large part from allegations about voter fraud hyped by Trump and his supporters, including unfounded claims that droves of undocumented immigrants are swaying elections.

The survey found that 67% of California voters believe American democracy is under attack, including 84% of Democrats, 40% of Republicans and 64% of voters registered as “no party preference” or with other political parties. An almost equal number of Republicans, 38%, believed democracy was being “tested” but not under attack, compared with 13% of Democrats and 26% of independents. The remainder of those surveyed said American democracy is in no danger.

The partisan divide was more pronounced when voters were asked if they wanted California to enact its own Voting Rights Act after decisions by the Supreme Court limited federal protections against discrimination and unequal access to ballots, the poll found.

Overall, 66% of California registered voters backed adopting new state voter protections, with 88% of Democrats supporting new laws compared with 25% of Republicans and 66% of voters who are political independents or belong to other parties. Support for new state laws was strongest among Black voters — 72% — who historically have been targeted with discriminatory voting policies, including Jim Crow-era laws such as literacy tests and poll taxes.

The federal Voting Rights Act of 1965 banned those policies, ensuring that the right to vote cannot be denied because of race. The law also ensured that Black Americans and other communities of color had the opportunity to participate in all parts of the political system and elect the leaders of their choosing, influencing how political districts are drawn. The act was reauthorized by Congress in 2006 by an overwhelming bipartisan majority.

“Now it has come to the point where the president has tried to convince people that somehow equal voting rights is bad, because, in his words, ‘The wrong people are voting right,’” said Matt Barreto, faculty director of the UCLA Voting Rights Project, referring to Trump. “You have super majorities, very large percentages of Californians, who want the state to do more to protect voting rights, I think, because of the very tenuous climate right now, with the president constantly going after states for vote by mail and trying to get their voter rolls and these other sorts of things.”

Recent rulings by the conservative-leaning Supreme Court also have rolled back federal protections under the Voting Rights Act. A pending case, Louisiana vs. Callais, which involves the drawing of congressional districts, may overturn some of the remaining protections, Barreto said.

“I think people should be extremely nervous this court has not shown a lot of support for voting rights, and that’s the reason why California has an opportunity to pass its own state laws,” he said.

Among the laws California legislators could adopt, Barreto said, would be protections for early voting, banning onerous requirements on voters to prove citizenship and provide identification, and ensuring that congressional and other political districts are created to allow minority groups to elect representatives of their choice.

The Berkeley poll also found widespread support among California voters for requiring that the top three financial backers supporting and opposing ballot measures be listed in official ballot voter guides. A majority of Californians also supported expanding access to translation and interpreter assistance for populations that make up at least 5% or 5,000 voters in a county.

The Berkeley IGS poll surveyed 5,109 California registered voters online in English and Spanish from March 9 to 15. The results are estimated to have a margin of error of 2.5 percentage points in either direction in the overall sample, and larger numbers for subgroups.

Funding for the poll was provided to IGS by the Evelyn and Walter Haas, Jr. Fund, a private foundation based in San Francisco that aims to increase civic participation and improve the state’s democratic processes.

When Brazilian journalist Tatiana Merlino watched “The Secret Agent” — one of this year’s Oscar nominees for best picture — it felt like seeing scattered scenes from her own life.

As the movie follows Marcelo (played by Wagner Moura) — a professor fleeing from a vindictive businessman during Brazil’s military dictatorship (1964-1985), the story skims through old audio tapes and newspapers, reviewed by a researcher looking into how he died. Like her, Merlino also dug into the past to piece together how her uncle, Luiz Eduardo Merlino, a communist activist, was killed by the right-wing regime in 1971. Though it was initially reported as a suicide, the family soon found his corpse with torture marks in a morgue.

“It became necessary to fight for memory, truth, and justice, because these crimes committed by dictatorship agents weren’t punished at that time, and have not been to this day,” says the 49-year-old journalist, who first saw “The Secret Agent” in São Paulo, and made a career from investigating human rights abuses.

“When a country does not come to terms with its past,” she adds, “its ghosts resurface.”

Recent dictatorship-themed movies like “The Secret Agent” and “I’m Still Here,” which won the Oscar for best international film in 2025, were instant blockbusters back home in Brazil. While both films honor those who, like Merlino, still seek justice for the regime victims, their popularity also got boosted by the country’s zeitgeist.

To many Brazilians, these movies served as reminders of what could have been had former far-right President Jair Bolsonaro, himself a retired Army captain and a dictatorship nostalgic, succeeded in his 2022 attempt at a coup d’etat.

On Jan. 8, 2023, encouraged by Bolsonaro, hundreds of vandals stormed into the Three Powers Plaza, a square in the country’s capital, Brasília, that gathers the congress, the supreme court and the presidential palace. Neither he nor the vandals accepted the 2022 election — won by the veteran leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, better known as “Lula.”

The uprising followed the same blueprint as the pro-Trump rioters behind the Jan. 6 insurrection in the United States. Although President Trump himself was federally prosecuted for election obstruction, the case was dismissed after his reelection in 2024.

Unlike the U.S., however, Brazil has charged, judged and arrested the conspirators — including Bolsonaro and members of his staff who participated in the coup plot.

“Bolsonaro doesn’t come from Mars,” said “The Secret Agent” star Wagner Moura to the L.A. Times in February. “He’s deeply grounded in the history of the country.”

In 1964, a U.S.-backed coup enacted a violent, 21-year autocracy run by the military, whose effects still resonate today, says Alessandra Gasparotto, a professor at the Federal University of Pelotas (UFPEL).

“It was a dictatorship that worked from a perspective of building certain legitimacy, keeping the congress functioning, but of course, after purging dissent,” explains the Brazilian historian.

“I’m Still Here,” for example, dramatizes the real-life quest of Eunice Paiva, a housewife whose husband Rubens Paiva, a former leftist congressman who had his tenure revoked after the coup, then disappeared in the hands of the military in 1971. To this day, his body still hasn’t been recovered.

In 2014, Bolsonaro, then just a congressman, spit on a bust of Paiva erected to honor his memory during the coup’s 50th anniversary in Congress.

“The cinema of all countries has the role of preserving memory, so if you take a look at the Holocaust, the American Civil War, or World War II movies, it has this role of almost an ally of history,” says writer Marcelo Rubens Paiva, son of Rubens Paiva and author of the book from which “I’m Still Here” is based. “There’s an old saying: History is the narrative of winners, while art is of the defeated.”

In the case of Brazil, the militaries who led the repressive apparatus of the dictatorship got away with torture and murder through a 1979 amnesty law. It was initially enacted to pardon alleged “political crimes” committed by the regime opposition and allow a transition to democracy — but it was also used to pardon the dictatorship’s human rights violations. Then, in the late 1980s, the military oversaw a slow, gradual shift to democracy, stepping down from power only in 1985.

“This new republic had more continuity than novelty, since many politicians who were central to the dictatorship moved to central roles in the democratic government,” explains Gasparotto. “That’s why they built this pact [to forgive the regime’s crimes].”

For that reason, these movies still feel contemporary. “The Secret Agent,” for example, blends past and future through the records analyzed by a researcher, while “I’m Still Here” highlights Eunice Paiva’s post-regime fight for the recognition of Rubens Paiva’s death; without any corpse to officialize his death, he was just deemed disappeared.

When Merlino watched the movie, for example, Eunice reminded her of her grandmother, Iracema Merlino.

“I’m the third generation of my family fighting for memory, truth and justice,” says Merlino. “It started with my grandmother, who passed away, then it was handed to my mother, who’s now very ill, then to me.”

Nowadays, she awaits trial for the third lawsuit attempt of the family to hold her uncle’s torturer, Col. Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, accountable — the two other cases against the accused were dismissed over the years.

Since Ustra’s death in 2015, the Merlino family is now suing his estate for reparations. Yet he still remains a hero to some; in 2016, while Bolsonaro was still a congressman, he shouted a dedication to the memory of the torturer during the voting of the impeachment of Brazil’s former President Dilma Rousseff — herself one of the victims of Ustra in the 1970s, but among the few who survived.

“These films make connections with the present because understanding the past is important for understanding today’s contradictions,” says Marcelo Rubens Paiva. “What happened before interferes in the conflicts a country lives in today.”

So if authoritarians like Bolsonaro don’t come out of the blue, the same goes for other autocratic leaders, like President Trump.

Although founded on democratic principles, the U.S. itself has a long, muddled history with the concept. The authoritarian turn the country is reckoning with is part of a long legacy of inequality that stemmed from the 246-year institution of slavery. Following its abolishment in 1865 came a near-centurylong period of tension marked by racial segregation that we now refer to as “Jim Crow.”

“With some exceptions, the South was governed by a then-segregationist Democrat party — with [rampant] electoral fraud, authoritarianism, use of local police for political repression, and no chance for opposition, even [by] moderates,” says Arthur Avila, a history professor at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul (UFRGS) in Brazil.

Although the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 ended segregation and granted voting rights to people of all races — signed by then-President Lyndon B. Johnson, a Southern Democrat who broke away from the party’s history to spearhead progressive domestic policy — the decades that followed were ridden with manipulations of the electoral system. For example gerrymandering, or the practice of manipulating electoral district boundaries to favor one political party, is an ongoing, albeit controversial tactic among both Democrats and Republicans.

President Trump himself was federally prosecuted for election obstruction. The indictment alleged that, upon losing the 2020 election, Trump conspired to overturn the results and manipulate the public by spreading false claims of election fraud on social media. It argued that this, in turn, stoked a mob of his supporters into leading the deadly Jan. 6 attacks on the Capitol; but the case was dismissed upon his reelection in 2024.

In the lead-up to the midterm elections in November, Trump has pushed for federal control over elections, restrictions on mail-in voting and the addition of citizenship documents to vote, despite an existing federal law that already prohibits noncitizens from voting in U.S. elections. (He tried implementing the latter through an executive order in 2025, but it was permanently blocked by a federal court; a voter ID bill called the “SAVE America Act” is currently stalling in the Senate.)

“There’s a strong local authoritarian tradition in the U.S. that Trump himself feeds from,” says Avila.

Besides that, according to Avila, the country faces a growing “de-democratization” process from within. This shows in the rising control and dismantling of institutions by reactionary sectors — including efforts to block professional, educational and athletic programs promoting DEI, or diversity, equity and inclusion — from what many critics and scholars have cited as lingering resentment from desegregation, he says.

“We may see it as a slow authoritarian turn in North American politics that didn’t overturn the democratic regime yet,” Arthur considers. “But if this process goes on, and that’s a conjecture, in the next decade the U.S. may become a state of exception that keeps democratic appearances but has been stripped of any democracy’s substance whatsoever.”

As movies such as “The Secret Agent and “I’m Still Here” remind us, a great deal of maintaining a democracy has to do with keeping a good memory.