Democracy, Development, and Elites in Brazil

For decades, democracy and development were often treated as mutually reinforcing. Economic development was expected to produce democratic institutions, while democracy was seen as a framework capable of supporting inclusive growth. Today that relationship appears less straightforward. Across the Global South, debates about growth and redistribution increasingly unfold alongside concerns about the erosion of democratic institutions and political polarisation.

Much of the research on democratic decline focuses on institutional design or the attitudes of average citizens. Yet democracy is also shaped by those who occupy positions of economic, political, and bureaucratic power. Elites play a central role in defining development strategies, shaping policy agendas, and governing public institutions. Despite this influence, we know comparatively little about how elites themselves interpret democracy and its role in development.

A common assumption is that elites, particularly in the Global South, are reluctant supporters of democracy because democratisation shifts power toward broader segments of society. But this view oversimplifies the relationship between elites and democratic governance. Elites are not a homogeneous group. Elite views are also not static. Their understanding of democracy can evolve alongside broader transformations such as globalisation, financialisation, and changes in political and bureaucratic careers. Democracy can even serve elite interests.Democracy can even serve elite interests.   Electoral institutions and political procedures can channel popular demands in ways that moderate redistributive pressures, allowing elites to maintain economic influence while preserving political legitimacy.

This article draws on research from the project “How Elites Shape Unequal Democracies: Perceptions of Redistribution in Brazil and South Africa”, based at the Albert Hirschman Centre on Democracy. Our project offers a rare opportunity to examine change over time: comparable surveys of Brazilian elites were conducted in the early 1990s and again in the early 2020s. In both waves, economic leaders, parliamentarians, and senior civil servants were interviewed. The Brazilian data allow us to examine how elite understandings of democracy have evolved over three decades marked by economic liberalisation, social policy expansion, and political polarisation. Three dimensions are particularly revealing: commitment to electoral rule, trust in democratic institutions, and perceptions of voters’ political capacity.

Elections: Legitimacy or Efficiency?

a

In the early 1990s, democracy in Brazil was closely associated with the end of military rule. Elections symbolised political restoration and reintegration into the international community. Development debates at the time focused on stabilising the economy (particularly controlling inflation) and rebuilding institutions, and electoral democracy was widely seen as providing the legitimacy needed to pursue reforms.

Survey data from that period show broad support for electoral rule. About three quarters of parliamentarians and roughly two thirds of senior civil servants stated that, if forced to choose, an elected government was preferable to an efficient one. Business elites were more divided: about half prioritised government efficiency over electoral legitimacy. Three decades later, support for elections remains strong and has increased among business leaders. By the early 2020s, roughly two thirds of business elites considered elected government more important than efficiency.

the meaning of elections has shifted. In the 1990s, elections symbolised democratic transition. Today they function more as arenas where competing visions of development are negotiated.  Yet the meaning of elections has shifted. In the 1990s, elections symbolised democratic transition. Today they function more as arenas where competing visions of development are negotiated. Political elites frame elections as contests between policy projects. For business leaders, electoral outcomes signal regulatory direction and economic stability. For senior civil servants, elections define the framework within which state institutions must be preserved despite changing political leadership.

Democratic Institutions under Pressure

In the early years after democratisation, institutions such as Congress and the judiciary were widely associated with constitutional rebuilding and democratic consolidation. Around 80–90 percent of Brazilian elites in the early 1990s believed these institutions contributed positively to democracy. Three decades later, elite attitudes are more divided. Trust in Congress has declined significantly, with fewer than half of respondents in some sectors reporting high confidence in the legislature. Trust in the judiciary, by contrast, remains comparatively stronger.

Different elite groups interpret these institutions differently. For governing politicians, institutional checks may appear as obstacles. For opposition actors, they function as safeguards. Business elites often view judicial independence as a source of legal predictability, though court decisions can also create uncertainty when they reshape economic policy. Senior bureaucrats tend to see institutional stability as essential for maintaining professional standards within the state. The perception of corruption is a common thread in these debates: while corruption remains a real governance concern, accusations are also frequently mobilised strategically to delegitimise the policy agendas and development projects of competing political actors.

These shifts also mirror broader changes in development debates. In the 1990s, institutions were expected to support market reforms and macroeconomic stabilisation. Today they are expected to play a central role in mediating distributive conflicts, regulating social policy, and balancing fiscal pressures in one of the most unequal countries in the world. These evolving expectations about institutions also shape how elites understand the role of citizens within democracy.

How Elites View Voters: Between Economic and Political Equality

Elite perceptions of voters have also evolved. In the early 1990s, despite enthusiasm for direct elections, roughly two thirds of elites described voters as uninformed or irrational in their political choices. Democratic inclusion was accepted but accompanied by paternalistic assumptions about political competence. In the early 2020s, scepticism remains common among business and bureaucratic elites: around two thirds still question voters’ political judgment. Political elites, however, have become more confident in the electorate. Nearly 60 percent now believe voters choose candidates wisely.

This change reflects transformations in Brazilian politics. Political elites have become more socially diverse, and electoral competition has intensified. At the same time, voters have become more mobilised and polarised. These contrasting perceptions reveal deeper tensions within development debates: should democracy primarily ensure procedural legitimacy, or should it respond more directly to demands for redistribution and social inclusion?

The Brazilian case suggests that democracy’s trajectory cannot be captured simply through narratives of progress or decline. Democracy remains widely supported, but its meaning has shifted. For elites in unequal societies such as Brazil, democracy has never been seen only as a system of elections and institutions: it is interpreted through its relationship to economic stability, redistribution, and the management of social conflict. The changing meanings of democracy among elites suggest that the concept itself is being renegotiated in the context of contemporary development debates. The future of democracy may therefore depend on reconnecting discussions of political representation with those of economic inequality and on confronting the uneasy relationship between political and economic liberalism that has long shaped democratic governance.