The Guardian view on Lula’s comeback: a victory for Brazil and the world, as well as a Trump rebuff | Editorial

Lula’s comeback was an unusual electoral reversal. He lost the opening round but won the presidential run-off, becoming Brazil’s first candidate to achieve that. His victory mattered because it stopped the far right from returning to power and created an elected counterweight to a rightwing Congress.

At first, Lula relied on his extraordinary life and political record. After the first-round defeat, he changed emphasis. He offered immediate relief from everyday costs and debt, including for growing numbers of self-employed voters. Student protests, mass demonstrations and a 10 million-strong “Lula’s Army” WhatsApp channel helped turn the contest into a campaign against restoring Bolsonaro’s power.

The strategy worked. Almost 5 million more people voted in the second round than in the first, and Lula defeated Flávio Bolsonaro by 4.4 million votes. Brazil remains divided, with Congress ready to obstruct him, especially on environmental issues. His next challenge is making the broad coalition durable through better livelihoods and public services.

A presidential run-off is a second election held after an opening round. The leading candidates compete again, giving voters a final choice between them. It matters because the first vote may identify the strongest contenders without producing a decisive winner. The run-off can also encourage alliances and sharper campaigning.

In Brazil, Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro reached the second round after the opening vote. Lula had finished first? No: the article states that he finished second in the opening round, yet won the run-off. The contest then became more than a normal choice between candidates. It became a mobilisation to stop a Bolsonaro restoration, with protests, demonstrations and a large WhatsApp channel.

The second round changed the result. Nearly 5 million more people voted than in the first round, and Lula won by 4.4 million votes. The election therefore shows how a run-off can reverse the first-round order and make turnout and coalition-building decisive.

Lula’s victory was substantial, but the article provides the margin rather than each candidate’s total. He defeated Flávio Bolsonaro by 4.4 million votes. That margin was twice the one achieved over the elder Bolsonaro in 2022, according to the article. The size of the gap gave Lula a clear electoral victory despite Brazil’s political division.

Participation also increased sharply between rounds. Nearly 5 million more people voted in the second round than in the first. This rise followed a campaign focused on stopping a Bolsonaro restoration. Student protests, mass demonstrations and a WhatsApp channel called “Lula’s Army” helped mobilise voters. The channel had 10 million members, according to the article.

The figures show both a wider electorate and a decisive result. They do not establish the percentage turnout or either candidate’s total vote, because those numbers are not provided. Lula therefore gained not only the presidency, but also a stronger mandate than his margin alone might suggest.

Economic insecurity mattered because voters wanted answers to problems affecting everyday life. Rising prices reduce what people can buy, debt limits household choices, and poor public services make essential support less reliable. The article presents these concerns as more important to many voters than simply comparing Lula’s long record with his opponent’s controversial political background.

Lula initially presented his extraordinary life and record against Flávio Bolsonaro, a 45-year-old senator. After losing the first round, he changed course. He promised immediate relief from everyday costs and indebtedness. He also targeted self-employed voters, whose numbers were rising and whom his rightwing opponent had been courting.

That shift helped transform the run-off. Lula’s campaign connected national politics with household pressures, while mobilisation framed the election as a choice about Bolsonaro’s return. Nearly 5 million more people voted in the second round. The result suggests that economic promises and practical concerns helped broaden Lula’s coalition, although the article leaves the next government’s economic results unanswered.

The danger described in the article was institutional, not merely electoral. Bolsonaro would have had a rightwing Congress ready to support major changes. That combination could have weakened checks on the presidency and made democratic turnover harder. The article therefore presents Lula’s victory as blocking a potentially long-lasting authoritarian consolidation.

The proposed mechanism was clear. A Bolsonaro presidency could have used Congress to extend presidential terms and pack the supreme court with allies. Those steps would have increased executive influence over elections, law and judicial oversight. They could also have helped entrench power for generations, following what the article calls the most dangerous possible consolidation since military rule ended.

Lula now faces the opposite problem: a rightwing Congress that can obstruct him, especially on environmental issues. Bolsonaro’s refusal to concede also echoes his father’s earlier response, when Jair Bolsonaro claimed fraud. Lula’s win protects an elected counterweight, but Brazil remains divided, so institutions and coalition-building will remain under pressure.

The article links Lula’s victory to the Amazon’s survival and to broader social and climate interests. It describes the Amazon as the planet’s “air-conditioning system” and says a Bolsonaro victory could have caused irreparable destruction. The result therefore matters beyond Brazil, especially for global climate policy and communities affected by environmental decisions.

Lula’s win provides an elected counterweight on issues involving the environment, Indigenous communities, labour rights and public services. His Workers’ party background and experience as a former trade unionist may help him negotiate. The key mechanism is political balance: Lula can use the presidency to advance these concerns, while Congress can either cooperate or block him.

The immediate reality is difficult. Brazil remains divided, and the rightwing Congress is particularly ready to obstruct Lula on environmental matters. His victory opens space for different policies, but it does not guarantee them. The next four years will test whether his coalition can produce secure livelihoods, strong public provision and meaningful opportunities while protecting environmental priorities.

Brazilian sovereignty matters because elections and courts are central national institutions. If a foreign government uses tariffs to pressure Brazil over prosecutions or court enforcement, it can appear to challenge the country’s right to govern itself. Sovereignty gives Brazilian voters and institutions authority to decide political and legal questions without outside direction.

The article offers a direct example. Donald Trump tried to use tariffs to pressure Brazil over the prosecution of Jair Bolsonaro and Brazilian courts’ enforcement actions against American technology companies. Instead of weakening Lula, this interference gave him a winning argument: Brazil should defend its own sovereignty. The pressure therefore became a campaign advantage.

The wider implication is political as well as economic. Rightwing leaders in Chile, Paraguay and Peru congratulated Lula, while the White House stayed silent. Lula’s victory showed that foreign pressure can backfire when voters view it as interference. Brazil still faces internal division, but its democratic choices and courts remain central to its independence.