巴西第二轮选举显示治安议题对投票影响有限

The public security crisis has ranked as voters’ number one concern for the past two years, according to several opinion polls. In the latest survey, released Friday (30) by Ipsos, the issue was cited as one of the country’s main problems by 46% of respondents, who were allowed to select multiple answers. It is no coincidence that the issue became a centerpiece of opposition campaigns, including a visit to El Salvador, where the local dictator’s heavy-handed crackdown on crime has become a model. The remaining question is what impact this had at the ballot box. In the presidential election, it was quite limited. Brazil launches nationwide anti-crime strategy amid election pressure Scholar says Rio raid exposes political void, failed security logic Organized crime displaces families, seeks to sway Ceará vote Valor Data cross-referenced National Public Security Data, compiled by the Ministry of Justice, with information from the 2022 Census to calculate the rate of intentional lethal violent crimes (CVLI) per 100,000 inhabitants. The figure includes intentional homicides, femicides, aggravated assaults resulting in death and robberies resulting in death. It then compared the results with those of the runoff held on October 25. The same group of cities was also compared with the previous election. In the 200 cities with rates above 57.58 per 100,000 inhabitants, Lula won in 144, securing 63% of the vote. He had already performed well in this microcosm in the previous election, when he received 64% of the votes. Voters who experience violence close to home mostly opted to keep the current government in office. It would be misleading, however, to establish a direct cause-and-effect relationship, because the sample is heavily concentrated in the Northeast. The region has consistently voted for Lula since 2002, and it is an undisputed fact that violent crime has worsened more there than in other parts of the country. More than half of Brazil’s 200 most violent cities—120, to be precise—are in the Northeast, so it is only natural that Lula won in this microcosm. Lula’s share of the vote among Northeast voters was even higher proportionally: 69%, compared with 31% for his opponent, Senator Flávio Bolsonaro (PL of Rio de Janeiro). Lula also came in first at the opposite end of the spectrum: in cities where not a single CVLI case was recorded in 2025. There are quite a few such places. A level of tranquility unimaginable to residents of major urban centers was enjoyed by 1,901 municipalities last year. No incidents were recorded in 55% of municipalities in Rio Grande do Sul, 52% in Santa Catarina, 51% in Piauí, 47% in Minas Gerais and 43% in São Paulo. Of the 1,901 municipalities without violent crime, exactly half are in Minas Gerais, São Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul. Lula received 51% of the vote in this group, while Flávio Bolsonaro got 49%—practically the same result as the nationwide tally (52% to 48%). The survey has limitations when it comes to measuring the impact of violence. A city under the control of a criminal faction could, in theory, report a low crime rate, without residents being spared the effects of a collapse in public security. There are also differences whose nuances could only be captured through a more in-depth study. At polling stations in Pavuna, a neighborhood in Rio de Janeiro that traditionally records some of the city’s highest numbers of CVLI cases, Flávio defeated Lula by margins ranging from 51% to 59%. In neighboring Costa Barros, where Lula won with 52%, the dynamics of violence are no different. The conclusion is that, as Jairo Nicolau wrote in his book “Brazil Has Turned to the Right,” there is a “difference between defining an issue as important and choosing a particular candidate because of that issue.” In part, violence has less influence on voting decisions because voters themselves are able to distinguish between the issue and their choice of candidate. In July 2024, Ipespe conducted a poll commissioned by the Brazilian Federation of Banks (Febraban) asking which level of government bore the greatest responsibility in each policy area. On public security, 40% pointed to state governments, 28% to city governments, 11% to the federal government and 10% to all three levels. The question was about which level of government has the greatest responsibility, not which one should have it. But the fact is that, when voters made their choices, this does not appear to have been a decisive factor.