By Alejandra Garcia Elizalde on October 18, 2026
President Lula during a campaign rally in São Miguel Paulista, in the eastern part of São Paulo. Photo credit: Ricardo Stuckert
Brazil is experiencing a new wave of popular demonstrations that has brought thousands of people into the streets, from major cities to smaller towns, in a show of support for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and rejection of the far right.
Driven mainly by young people and students, the demonstrations have spread from north to south across the country without centralized leadership. Calls to mobilize have circulated spontaneously, bringing together people from different generations, social organizations, and political groups amid growing concerns over the possibility of political and social setbacks.
In Rio de Janeiro, Copacabana Beach became one of the main gathering points. Thousands of demonstrators arrived carrying flags of the Workers’ Party (PT), the Unified Workers’ Central (CUT), the Landless Rural Workers’ Movement (MST), and other organizations.
Music and singing, characteristic features of large Brazilian popular gatherings, accompanied the demonstrations. This time, however, the festive atmosphere was driven by a clear political purpose: defending Lula against attacks from the right and expressing opposition to the political project led by Bolsonarism.
Among the slogans heard were chants of support for the Brazilian president, alongside those directed against former President Jair Bolsonaro and his allies. The mobilizations also spread to the Lapa neighborhood, one of Rio de Janeiro’s most popular cultural and musical hubs, where expressions of support and protest continued.
The Electoral Contest and the Backlash against Bolsonarism
The scale of the demonstrations raises questions about their potential impact on the electoral landscape. Opposition to far-right candidate Flávio Bolsonaro, who represents the continuation of his father Jair Bolsonaro’s political movement, could benefit Lula and shift the trends reflected in upcoming polls.
However, popular mobilization alone does not guarantee a favorable electoral outcome. With two weeks remaining before the vote scheduled for October 25, voter preferences will depend on multiple factors, including each camp’s ability to mobilize its base, broaden its support, and turn the enthusiasm in the streets into votes.
In any case, the popular response shows that part of Brazilian society views the contest as extending beyond the competition between candidates. For these sectors, the debate concerns the country’s political direction, the protection of rights, and the risk of the far right regaining political power.
The use of religious and cultural symbols during the demonstrations is also significant. The image of Our Lady of Aparecida, Brazil’s patron saint, has been embraced by sectors of the left at a time when religious symbols have become a battleground for political influence. This appropriation shows that Brazilian popular identity does not belong exclusively to any one ideological movement, even as different political sectors seek to claim it as their own.
The combination of spontaneity, social organization, music, and youth participation is one of the most visible features of this popular counteroffensive. Its ultimate political impact, however, remains to be seen.
Meanwhile, national sovereignty has become a central issue in Brazil’s presidential race, amid warnings from Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government about possible U.S. interference in the electoral process. These tensions have concrete precedents: in July 2025, Donald Trump announced 50% tariffs on a large share of Brazilian imports and publicly linked the measure to the judicial proceedings against former President Jair Bolsonaro, whom he portrayed as a victim of political persecution. Washington also imposed sanctions on Supreme Federal Court Justice Alexandre de Moraes, who is overseeing the case.
These decisions shifted the ideological affinity between Trump and Bolsonaro into the realm of diplomatic and trade confrontation between Washington and Brasília. Lula’s government rejected the use of U.S. economic measures and sanctions to pressure Brazil’s judicial institutions. In the current electoral climate, these precedents have fueled concerns about the limits of Washington’s influence over Brazil’s domestic politics and revived a fundamental debate: Brazil’s right to determine its own political course without external pressure.
Latin American Sovereignty in the Face of Washington’s Ambitions
The political contest in Brazil can also be understood within a broader geopolitical context: the defense of Latin American countries’ ability to determine their own development models and establish international economic relations without external pressure.
From a critical perspective, U.S. pressure on Greenland and Latin America reflects a strategic logic aimed at preserving Washington’s economic, political, and technological dominance. While Greenland occupies a significant position in U.S. Arctic security, Latin America holds natural resources, strategic infrastructure, and markets that are crucial to global competition.
In this context, Washington has expressed concern over China’s growing presence in strategic sectors across the region. However, the underlying debate extends beyond Chinese investment in Latin American economies to encompass the right of sovereign states to determine their own alliances, investment policies, and development priorities.
When trade and technological relations become conditional on geopolitical alignment, economic sovereignty risks becoming a limited promise. Countries’ autonomy depends precisely on their ability to diversify international partnerships and negotiate in accordance with their own interests.
Latin America is familiar with the historical consequences of an international economic model based on raw material exports and the concentration of profits in centers of economic power.
In Open Veins of Latin America, Uruguayan writer Eduardo Galeano traced the movement of the region’s wealth: Bolivia’s silver, Peru’s guano, Chile’s saltpeter and copper, Brazil’s minerals, and Venezuela’s oil fueled successive cycles of capitalist accumulation. Although commodities and markets have changed, the underlying structure persists: extraction takes place on the periphery, while much of the financing, technology, and profits remain concentrated elsewhere.
The Challenge of Turning Mobilization into a National Project
The demonstrations in Brazil and the debate over regional sovereignty converge on a fundamental question: who gets to determine the political and economic direction of Latin American societies?
Popular participation can serve as a counterweight to projects that threaten social rights or deepen external dependency. However, for mobilization to translate into lasting change, it must also be accompanied by public policies capable of addressing social demands, strengthening domestic production, and expanding development opportunities.
In Brazil, the coming days will be decisive in determining whether the enthusiasm expressed in the streets translates into an electoral advantage for Lula or whether Bolsonarism manages to regain ground. Meanwhile, across Latin America, the debate over how to harness the region’s natural resources without sacrificing political and economic autonomy remains unresolved.
The issue extends beyond a single election or a particular political moment. It is about determining whether the region will continue to occupy a subordinate position in the global economy or build a development model that places sovereignty and the well-being of its people at the center of its decisions.
Source: Resumen Latinoamericano – US