by Plinio Corrêa de Oliveira
As I write this on Thursday morning, voters in São Paulo cast 876,145 blank votes in the House of Representatives elections, accounting for 21.8% of the total. A similar pattern occurred in elections for the federal Senate and state legislatures here and in other states, not to mention invalid votes and abstentions.
I’m unsure if the reader has already noticed the importance of voters’ refusal to select candidates from party lists. Citizens sacrifice their free time just to vote at their polling stations. They receive their ballots and enter the booth. They could vote for any candidate by simply marking the ballot. Still, voters often choose not to bother marking their ballots to pick anyone. They couldn’t care less.
More precisely, voters favored other people who were not on the candidates’ lists. That is why they protested and chose the only possible option. Since they could not stay home without facing fines and bureaucratic hurdles, they expressed their frustration secretly in the voting booth by submitting a blank ballot.
As an expression of public opinion, it is not terrible that 20% to 25% of voters whose votes have been counted so far have done so.
* * *
After carefully considering the various candidates, I did not cast a blank ballot but voted in accordance with all legal requirements. I also would have done my best to discourage hesitant acquaintances from casting a blank or null ballot.
However, all this does not exempt me from my duty as a Brazilian to analyze this impressive proliferation of “protest votes.” Let us call them blank votes, ignoring invalid votes and abstentions.
* * *
First, this electoral apathy went beyond just “protest votes.” Overall, the election was marked by indifference. Most supporters of any candidate did so without enthusiasm, and those criticizing other candidates did so without passion.
Naturally, the essential moralization of propaganda contributed to this indifference. With strict bans on excessive electoral spending, the election lacked excitement, fans, or the feel of a championship, leaving our people unenthusiastic despite their familiarity with fans and championships.
This suggests that previous elections were more like competitions than straightforward political votes.
Is this conclusion accurate? At least it is logical.
Our party disputes have historically lacked ideas and continue to do so. Electoral advertising emphasizes people more than principles. For example, campaigns often rely on photographs. To most voters, what does a candidate’s face really symbolize? Nothing. Yet, any aspiring representative or senator risks losing votes if they depend solely on a clear ideological message and neglect to give their best publicity to their photo.
Winning or losing candidates who read this should not be angry with me. If they used their faces as an electoral argument, it was clearly not out of vanity. It was because they believed, like me, that faces carry more weight than programs with many voters.
* * *
Of course, I am not including the entire political team that contested the recent elections in the list of photo candidates. The long list of candidates included some with a particular ideological slant. Others genuinely represent rural areas with justified and unquestionable electoral roots. Lastly, some enjoyed well-deserved titles that gave them personal prestige.
Such candidates, a minority, do not serve as an argument against what I have been saying. Their presence on the lists only explains why the number of “protest votes” was not even higher.
* * *
But someone might ask, didn’t the elections show that people are happy with the government’s direction? How then can we say they are so insignificant?
Herein lies one of the delicate points of the matter. I believe the government’s majority was neither bigger nor smaller among those who voted than those who did not.
In my opinion, casting a “protest vote” doesn’t mean supporting either the government or the opposition.
It is something else entirely. Something very different.
An increasing number of Brazilians recognize the critical importance of these times. They do not see the key issues that matter to them reflected in the pre-election debates. As a result, since they are required to vote, they cast a “protest vote.”
Here are some issues the election campaign has been mostly silent about.
-
The federal government is drafting at least five bills to reform the Civil, Penal, and other codes that will soon be sent to Congress for a vote. This means transforming the entire country. Is it right to make such a major change during a crisis like this? Would it be better to reform our laws gradually? Do most voters know their candidate’s views on this very important issue, one of the biggest the country has ever faced? I don’t think so.
-
The second issue links to the first: it involves divorce. What is your candidate’s stance on this? I believe most voters are unaware of it. In Rio, for example, those supporting divorce probably voted mostly for Mr. Nelson Carneiro. But many of them likely voted for candidates whose position on the issue they did not know. Additionally, many anti-divorce supporters might have voted for Mr. Nelson Carneiro, trusting that the Church or some TFP petition would secure the victory for marriage indissolubility at the last minute. I want to believe this explains the notable indifference of Rio de Janeiro’s Chancery toward Nelson Carneiro’s candidacy. The silence from Rio’s Archdiocese reflects the ideological apathy common in many of our circles. So, what could be more understandable—and by that, I do not mean “praiseworthy”—than the “protest vote,” where voters choose to abstain from participating in such a trivial contest?
-
A third issue is land reform. This alone would have made our election ideological, as the issue divides Brazilian public opinion from north to south. Yet, it was missing from the contest! Once again, I ask: is there anything more natural for voters than to abstain in an election where this omission causes them to lose interest?
-
Finally, there is significant communist pressure in South America. Chile is gradually becoming a communist country. Next to it, Bolivia, with which we share a 2,500 km border, is on the brink of disaster. When Chile starts exporting large-scale subversion across that border, encouraged by Russia and China, and does the same to Argentina and Paraguay, it will trigger an international crisis of unparalleled severity in the continent’s history. Did the average voter know his candidate’s stance on how our country should respond in such a situation? No. So how can we be surprised that many ordinary voters felt there was no reason to choose?