法院辩论前连下两裁决，环球电视台取消巴西总统辩论

TV Globo canceled a presidential debate scheduled for Thursday (1) after two court rulings changed rules previously agreed upon with the candidates’ campaigns, creating legal uncertainty and what the broadcaster called “undue interference with the freedom of news organizations to organize election debates.” The debate was canceled less than an hour before it was due to begin. One ruling on the event’s format came from Federal Supreme Court (STF) Justice Gilmar Mendes, who ordered that Renan Santos (Mission) be included among the participants. However, he had not previously been scheduled to take part. TSE Justice Estela Aranha, meanwhile, barred the broadcaster from showing an empty podium for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and ruled that the other candidates could not direct questions to the Workers’ Party (PT) candidate, who had said he would not attend. Her ruling came in response to a request from Lula’s campaign. Brazil heads to polls in tightest presidential race on record The final 72 hours of the electoral war Brazil election court narrows social media removal orders Lula said Wednesday (30) that he would not participate in the debate. After the ruling adding Renan Santos to the lineup, Liberal Party (PL) presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro also withdrew. The two are leading the polls. “Globo has a long tradition of organizing election debates. Our goal is to promote a discussion of ideas for Brazil and allow voters to compare the candidates’ platforms,” the broadcaster said in a statement. “Our duty is to promote democracy, but the successive court rulings issued moments before the debate created legal uncertainty and represent undue interference with the freedom news organizations have to organize election debates. For this reason, Globo decided to cancel the debate,” it said. The broadcaster cited the two notices from the judges, which reached Globo shortly before the event. The Brazilian Association of Radio and Television Broadcasters (Abert), the National Association of Newspapers (ANJ) and the National Association of Magazine Publishers (Aner) issued a joint statement expressing solidarity with Globo. The organizations said they were “deeply outraged by the judicial intervention in the rules previously established, which led to the cancellation of the final presidential debate of the first round.” In his ruling, Gilmar Mendes said Renan Santos could fill the slot left open by Lula’s withdrawal. The justice cited Globo’s official debate rules, which gave the broadcaster “sole discretion” to invite a candidate who was performing well in the Quaest poll if another candidate withdrew. Mendes ruled that Santos met that requirement after registering 3% of voter support in the poll commissioned by Globo, noting that the figure was higher than the 1% recorded by Romeu Zema (New Party), who had been scheduled to participate. The STF justice acted on a request from the Solidarity party. Brazil’s electoral law requires radio and television broadcasters to invite candidates from parties, federations, or coalitions that have at least five members of Congress, combining federal deputies and senators. Mission has only one federal deputy, Kim Kataguiri of São Paulo. Zema’s New Party also does not meet the requirement, but his campaign obtained a favorable ruling from STF Justice Kassio Nunes Marques allowing him to participate. Before the rulings issued in recent days, the candidates initially scheduled to participate under the electoral rules were Lula, Flávio Bolsonaro, Ronaldo Caiado (Social Democratic Party, PSD) and Augusto Cury (Avante). In a separate ruling, TSE Justice Estela Aranha changed the rules governing the debate. She granted a request from Lula’s campaign challenging a provision that would have required the candidate’s empty seat to remain onstage with his name displayed and allowed the other candidates to address questions to him. Aranha ruled that the broadcaster’s rules could create an imbalance in the debate by providing “an independent space for references to an absent candidate without observing the dialectical dynamic that characterizes the institution of an electoral debate.” In a statement read by anchor César Tralli on Jornal Nacional, Globo said the empty-podium rule had been agreed upon with the campaigns. “The rules, signed by all the parties, including the PT, stipulate that if a candidate is absent, the podium reserved for that candidate will remain empty on the set, with a sign identifying the candidate. They also provide that, during one of the debate’s free-topic rounds, candidates who are present and wish to do so may say, in 30 seconds, what they would do to the candidate who did not attend,” the broadcaster said. What the candidates said At the time the debate was scheduled to take place, Lula appeared on a podcast while Flávio Bolsonaro hosted a livestream. On Flow Podcast, Lula questioned the format of the debates, saying that “people start fooling around.” “I think these debates are pointless. They don’t go anywhere, and then people start fooling around—what’s the joke, what’s the trick? When you’re running for president, it’s a serious thing. You’re discussing the country, not competing over who can score the biggest viral moment. I don’t like this kind of debate,” Lula said. Lula also questioned the participation of candidates with much lower levels of voter support in the same event. “You can’t put someone who has 49% up against someone who has 1%,” he said. In his livestream, Flávio Bolsonaro called Lula a “coward” and a “quitter” and accused him of coordinating with members of the judiciary to “censor” the debate. “He ran away from the debate. Coward. I invited Lula to the debate more than twice. I want to debate you, Lula. And not only did you not show up. You ran away from the debate; you also used your friends in the judiciary to impose censorship on this debate,” he said. “Why were the justices who issued these rulings so afraid of leaving a podium labeled ‘Lula’ empty at the debate, as the rules required? What were they afraid of?” he said. At Globo’s studio, Ronaldo Caiado, Augusto Cury, and Romeu Zema criticized the judiciary and Lula over the debate’s cancellation. At the same time, they refrained from criticizing Flávio Bolsonaro. Zema criticized the court rulings, saying they had created legal uncertainty. “Just minutes before the debate was supposed to start, a court ruling that, in my view, made no sense changed everything. Another candidate withdrew [Flávio], and we’re seeing the courts working in Lula’s favor,” the New Party candidate said. Caiado similarly called the episode an “attack on democracy.” He also said he saw an alliance between the judiciary and the president aimed at disrupting the electoral process. “The decisions by the TSE and the Supreme Court have reached a point that amounts to a dictatorship of the robes, where they apparently want to get together among themselves and decide who should be president of the Republic,” Caiado said. Cury also criticized Lula, saying the president “loves power” more than he cares about Brazilian society. He focused, however, on the STF, which he said was creating legal uncertainty in the country. “The STF has assumed a completely disproportionate role, and unfortunately this situation is bordering on a collapse of democracy,” he said. Renan Santos (Mission) called the cancellation “chaos” and questioned Globo’s decision. He also said voters would be the ones to lose out because they would not hear any of the candidates’ proposals. “You, Brazilian voters, will have no debate at all. Lula and Flávio Bolsonaro have once again run away, and because they ran away, there will be no debate. You will not know the proposals of most of the candidates in this election,” he said.