Felipe Jafet’s ’26 parents lived through a military dictatorship in Brazil. Like many Brazilians, they had never known life under a democracy. Following two decades of military dictatorship, Brazil adopted its current constitution in 1985 — less than forty years ago.

“In Brazil, there’s no such thing as democratic institutions like in the U.S.,” Jafet said. “Part of what people are trying to do is build them, and they’re not going to be identical to the American institutions, because it’s impossible to be, and it shouldn’t be. It’s a completely different context.” 

Jafet worked with Thay Graciano ’23 MIP ’24 Ph.D. ’28, lead organizer for the conference, Bruno Morato MBA ’23 MLS ’24 and Erik Navarro, a law school visiting scholar, to bring together Brazilian public officials and Stanford scholars. Sponsored by the Deliberative Democracy Lab, the conference was sparked by Graciano’s Ph.D. thesis research on AI governance in Brazil.

Stanford’s experts, including professors Condoleezza Rice, Larry Diamond and John Hennessy, led discussions during the three-day conference from Sept. 23 to 25. There was also a University-wide discussion with Brazil’s Chief Justice Luís Roberto Barroso, which was sponsored by the Hoover History Lab.

“These leaders are at the center of protecting democracy,” Graciano said. “It’s no small deal that these [scholars] want to get together and learn.” 

In light of democratic backsliding in both Brazil and the U.S., Brazilian students underscored the importance of hosting a conference to reaffirm Brazil’s commitment to democracy.

Approximately 30 Brazilian judges and prosecutors associated with the National Magistracy School attended the conference, including the Attorney General and Supreme Court Justice of Brazil. Nelson Missias de Morais, one of the judges in attendance, highlighted the potential for innovative collaboration between Stanford experts and Brazilian leaders. 

“The exchange with esteemed institutions such as Stanford holds immense significance, particularly for members of the judiciary,” he said. “By engaging in discourse with the world’s foremost authorities in both legal studies and technological innovation, magistrates gain a broader, more nuanced perspective on how technology influences legal frameworks.”     

For student organizers Graciano and Jafet, helping bolster their country’s democratic institutions by facilitating knowledge exchange between Brazil’s top leaders in the legal arena and Stanford’s foremost scholars represents a unique and intellectually rewarding opportunity. 

“What unites a lot of Brazilians here is we really feel love for our country, and we feel a great desire to give back through the education we’re getting here,” Graciano said. 

Brazilian judicial reform and challenges

Chief Justice Barroso, president of the Brazilian Supreme Court, stressed the importance of a return to civil discourse in public affairs and highlighted the critical role that the Brazilian Supreme Court plays in safeguarding democracy against the threat posed by mass disinformation disseminated by social media platforms. 

Barroso also discussed the striking parallels between the U.S. and Brazil — two democracies that have been challenged by the erosion of traditional liberal democratic values.

“[Brazilians] assume that the institutions that exist in Brazil right now will last. But it’s a work in progress,” Jafet said. “We wanted judges to stop and think together about these issues and what they can bring back to Brazil.”  

Prior to his appointment as Chief Justice, Barroso served as the chief judge of Brazil’s highest electoral authority, the Superior Electoral Court (Tribunal Superior Eleitoral, TSE), which he argued provides a “model for electoral regulatory institutions.” To protect the integrity of the electoral system, the TSE actively monitors digital platforms in an effort to prevent the spread of false or misleading information. 

Barroso contrasted Brazil’s approach with the U.S. According to Barroso, the controversies about the electoral process are decided by judges in Brazil, rather than decided by people who hold political affiliations.  

In 2019, Brazil’s Supreme Court began investigating digital attacks and threats against judges and their families. These investigations later expanded to include attacks on political institutions linked to individuals associated with the Bolsonaro presidency and its allies.

In late August 2024, Brazil’s Supreme Court voted unanimously to uphold a ban on the social media platform X, formerly known as Twitter. The ban was lifted a couple months later. The site was originally suspended in Brazil for failing to appoint a new legal representative within the required timeframe. This dispute began when the Court ordered the suspension of accounts that it believed spread disinformation.

The ban was ultimately lifted after X paid millions of dollars in fines and agreed to block accounts that were accused of spreading misinformation, Brazil’s Supreme Court announced in October 2024.

After Brazil’s 2020 election — in which Luiz Ignacio Lula da Silva of the leftist Worker’s Party defeated Jair Bolsonaro — Bolsonaro and his supporters refused to concede power. Instead, they alleged the influence of fraudulent schemes, launching a violent intimidation campaign against institutions. 

“The dangers were enormous. [Bolsonaro and his supporters] were attacking the institutions, including Congress, the Supreme Court and the press, and they were calling on people to invade the Court and remove us by force,” Barroso said.

Despite no evidence of fraud, the election’s aftermath brought “unimaginable” consequences for Brazilian democracy. Barroso cited the rise of militant politics in Brazil as a contributing factor.  

According to Barroso, the Jan. 8, 2023 assault on Brazilian democratic institutions bore a striking similarity to the Jan. 6, 2021 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

“I don’t know how close we were to a coup, but that many people were engaged in having a coup, I have no doubt. Disinformation was part of the strategy for the coup — that’s why we were fighting back,” Barroso said. 

As Chief Justice, Barroso has implemented several reforms to promote equity, diversity and political stability. These include requiring a national exam for all judicial candidates, increasing the number of female judges in higher courts and establishing affirmative action measures for Afro-Brazilians. 

As Brazilian society has become increasingly conservative, the Brazilian Supreme Court has sought to institute progressive rulings in line with Brazil’s 1988 Constitution, which establishes a system of universal access to healthcare and education. According to Ronaldo Costa Filho, former Brazilian ambassador to the United Nations (UN) and current consul-general in San Francisco, Brazil’s 1988 Federal Constitution established social rights when the country lacked the means to guarantee them. 

Calls for the legalization of same-sex marriages and protections for Indigenous communities draw on the constitutional commitment to equality. 

“The Brazilian constitution is a very enlightened constitution,” Barroso said. “The Court did not invent anything…Many people don’t like the Constitution itself, but it is hard to amend the constitution. So, you criticize the Court, and say that the Court is activist.” 

While Barroso acknowledged that policy disagreements are inevitable — and indeed vital — to a functioning democracy, he criticized the growing “loss of civility” and rise of aggressive, personal politics in both Brazil and the U.S. 

“The problem is intolerance,” Barroso said. “We need to recover the capacity of having people who think differently, of sitting [at] the same table, and putting [forward] their arguments, because that is what democracy is.”

Brazil’s AI revolution 

Among the fastest-growing sectors of the Brazilian economy are AI and software, which, according to Stanford experts, present both opportunities and risks in terms of democratic governance and regulation. The country’s AI innovations make it part of a small but growing list of democracies that are pioneering innovations across the digital spectrum. 

Jafet noted the degree of digitization in both Brazil’s public and private spheres is growing, with elections now held entirely online and banking operations almost exclusively conducted through digital means. 

AI tools can be deployed in Brazil’s judiciary system to speed the processing of cases and direct resources towards democratic governance, said Graciano, whose dissertation focuses on Brazil’s AI governance.

“People forget that developing countries have a lot of room for experimentation,” Graciano said. “Brazilians are extremely creative…they want to use technology for the better.”  

Graciano noted that the country’s cadre of public defenders relies heavily on AI. However, there is concern that public defenders could lose the human element of casework given the reliance on AI. 

In Brazil, the National Council of Justices (CNJ), a public institution overseen by the Chief Justice, has pioneered the Justice 4.0 project that employs digital tools including AI technologies to improve access to the judicial system. 

“If we want to make sure that people feel satisfied with the justice system, that they believe in the justice system, we need to use AI,” Graciano said. “The judges perhaps should be spending their time doing things that are more creative or interpretative of legal texts. There’s no reason why we should be spending money and interns’ [time] doing things that could be improved by the machine.” 

Through her doctoral project, Graciano aims for the Deliberative Democracy Lab to partner with Brazil’s public defense system to establish a regulatory institution comparable to the CNJ that can address concerns regarding the use of AI. While Brazil’s senate currently deliberates on AI Bill 2338 — which provides for regulation of AI across both the public and private spheres — the country’s judiciary has received criticism that there is currently no ethical framework for the use of AI.  

“It’s very much aspirational,” she said. “Imposing regulatory frameworks is up to the judicial system, and it’s up to us to make sure that they know that we are watching. That’s why these conversations are so important.” 

Strengthening global democracy 

Jafet aimed to create a space where participants can build networks and bridges with leaders from different nations with lasting benefits for all involved. 

“By hosting events like this, Stanford can really impact the world,” Jafet said. “If we’re able to bring in just a few leaders from whatever place in the world that we think needs improvement, Stanford can be at the forefront of that.” 

In one event organized by Jafet, there was a discussion on the history of legal interpretation between Brazilian judges and Michael McConnell, director of the Stanford Constitutional Law Center. This event was meant to offer the Brazilian judges insights from the American experience. 

“My session with the Brazilian judges showed how much we can learn from one another,” McConnell said. “I felt I connected with the group, as one judge to another.”

Clarification: This article was updated to reflect that the event was sponsored by the Hoover History Lab Chief Justice Luís Roberto Barroso and that the three-day conference was sponsored by the Deliberative Democracy Lab.