Yesterday was clearly a bad day for politicians convinced that power belongs to them. Forever. In Serbia, Aleksandar Vučić admitted electoral defeat after more than a decade of political dominance. In Brazil, Lula defeated Flávio Bolsonaro. Two countries, two different political systems, yet much the same story of power refusing to accept that it is not eternal.
- Freedom of speech in Trump’s democracy
- Citizens passed a vote of no confidence in Janez Janša’s government in a legislative referendum
- Not the Noric Kingdom, we are becoming a kingdom of fools
In Serbia, the students started the change. Young people who, following the tragedy in Novi Sad, demanded accountability, transparency and an end to corruption. Nearly two years of protests, pressure and persistence. Vučić could not stop them. In the end, voters decided his political future.
In Brazil, the story is slightly different. Jair Bolsonaro already lost to Lula in 2022, and now his son Flávio has also been defeated. And what followed? Instead of conceding defeat, a demand for the election to be annulled. Apparently, democracy is acceptable to the Bolsonaro family mainly when it delivers the desired result.
It is ironic how often politicians who swear by freedom understand that freedom rather selectively. Freedom of speech, as long as you speak in their favour. Freedom of the media, as long as it does not criticise them. Democracy, as long as they are winning. When they lose, though, elections, judges, journalists or foreign conspiracies suddenly become the problem.
Of course, not all right-wingers are the same, and the left does not have a monopoly on democracy either. But in political movements that place power above institutions and the leader above citizens, the ideological label is no longer important. Yesterday’s events primarily showed that even long-standing political dominance is not untouchable. That protests can have political consequences. That voters can replace those in power even when they have all but convinced themselves that the country is their private property.
Perhaps the title No room for the right is therefore a little too simplistic. More precisely: there is no room for power that promises people freedom but demands untouchability for itself. Because freedom is not a privilege of those in power, and democracy is not something that applies only when our side wins.