A person who chooses to run for president enters into a tacit agreement with the nation, in which they are obligated to accept the voting results in case of a defeat, or if they will, they are mandated to respect the constitution and the fundamental right while steering the government.

Amid a fierce campaign and the damage caused by the recession, the recent nod to authoritarian ideas begs from the two top candidates more than abiding by the rules.
It's time they both make clear their commitments to democracy.

Jair Bolsonaro (PSL) has been casting unfounded doubts on the electronic ballot system. By doing this, he is feeding conspiracy theories and paranoia into his base, but only if he doesn't win the election.

Bolsonaro, a Lower House representative by Rio de Janeiro, needs to show the country if he will continue to behave like a reckless, small-time candidate, or if he will show the maturity needed to be taken seriously as someone capable of governing Brazil.

By grotesquely showing admiration for torturers, foolishly using visual references to vigilantism, crudely disdaining women and shallowly despising minorities, Bolsonaro behaves in ways that cannot be tolerated in a president. It's time to correct, as clearly as possible, these affronts to the collective civilized behavior.

Before casting their ballots, voters have a right to know what are Bolsonaro's proposals regarding the presidential role. Could he set up a "self-coup" and summon a new constitution, written by notables instead of elected representatives, as his running mate suggested? Can he suspend the vote for a bill in the Congress, as his main economic advisor publicly wondered? The constitutional answer to both questions is no. So what's up with Bolsonaro?

A clear message of democratic leanings is also lacking in Fernando Haddad's camp. The rallying cry "An election without Lula is fraud!", now cynically silenced, has yet to be publicly denounced. The constant attacks to legitimate outcomes from the Judiciary and the Legislative, as well as the systematic leaning into corruption, have not been acknowledged and properly responded by neither the party nor the candidate.

There was also no apology for the unconditional support to the Venezuelan dictatorship, which is producing one of the worst humanitarian crises in South America. This behavior from both Haddad and his surrogates are leading many voters to wonder how deep is their commitment to the rule of law.

Both campaigns, whose candidates are leading in the polls, show inclinations to intimidate the press, reduce Congressional power and covertly alter how the Supreme Court works. The argument that some important Brazilian issues could be fixed with institutional shortcuts is not one grounded in democracy.

There can be no solution outside of the Constitution.

^{Translated by NATASHA MADOV}
Read the article in the original language  

​​