Leftist Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva achieved a historic victory in the Brazilian presidential election held on October 25, 2026. This victory came amid sharp political and social polarisation and the rising influence of the far right in Brazil and Latin America, backed by its American counterpart led by Donald Trump.
The significance of this electoral victory lies not only in Lula winning a fourth term but also in the political and organisational experience that contributed to it. Foremost among these factors is the ability of multiple leftist and progressive forces, differing in their programs and intellectual orientations, to build a broad electoral alliance on the basis of common ground to confront the far right.
It is important to view this victory in its broader context, including the social and class balance of forces, the accumulated experience of organising and of trade union and grassroots work, and the economic and political conditions that shaped voters’ choices. The results of an election of this scale cannot be reduced to a single factor, however important it may be. The value of the leftist alliance lies in its ability to transform the points of convergence among its different forces into an influential force and effective joint political action, while the intellectual and political differences and contradictions among its components persist.
A Broad Leftist and Progressive Alliance Despite Differences
Lula ran in the election backed by the “Brazil Ready for More” coalition, which brought together seven leftist and progressive parties organised into two party federations and two independent parties. The “Brazil of Hope” federation consisted of the Workers’ Party (PT), to which Lula belongs, the Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB), and the Green Party (PV). The second federation brought together the Socialism and Liberty Party (PSOL), which embraces currents of the socialist and radical left, and the Sustainability Network (Rede). The two independent parties were the Brazilian Socialist Party (PSB) and the Democratic Labour Party (PDT). The alliance also enjoyed the support of trade unions, professional associations, and various social movements, which strengthened its popular and social base. Geraldo Alckmin, of the Brazilian Socialist Party, was Lula’s running mate for vice president.
The significance of this alliance lies in bringing these forces together despite their differences over capitalism, the role of the state, and the limits of social reform. These forces agreed on common electoral goals while preserving their identities and organisational independence.
Herein lies one of the most important lessons of the Brazilian experience: the unity of the left does not mean its ideological or organisational uniformity, but its capacity for joint action around points of convergence, with respect for pluralism and difference. It is natural for disagreements over Lula’s economic and social policies to continue, even among the forces that supported him electorally.
Unity Does Not Mean Abandoning Criticism and Independence
The Brazilian experience poses an important question for leftist forces around the world: why do intellectual and organisational differences turn into barriers that prevent cooperation, despite the many points of convergence, even when these forces face common political and class challenges?
I have proposed this model of cooperation among different leftist forces in a number of my previous articles, based on the conviction that pluralism among communists, Marxists of various intellectual and political orientations, social democrats, other leftist forces, and environmental, feminist, and independent leftist currents can be a source of strength and of intellectual and political richness, if managed democratically and constructively, away from monopoly, exclusion, and claims to possess absolute truth. Unity does not mean abandoning criticism or unconditionally accepting the policies of governments led by leftist and progressive alliances. It should also guarantee the right of allied parties and forces to mutual and constructive criticism of one another’s positions and policies, within a framework of respect for difference, democratic dialogue, and the preservation of joint action.
This unity requires a different political culture, one that treats criticism as a means of development and accountability and respects the independence of participating parties, movements, and individuals. Electoral alliances should not become a substitute for daily work among the masses or a pretext for postponing social and economic demands in the name of preserving unity. The most sustainable cooperation is the kind that rests on mutual trust, growing through practice and tangible achievements.
Confronting Capitalism and the Far Right Requires a Broad Social Front
The victory demonstrated the importance of linking the defence of democracy, rights, and freedoms with the economic and social demands of the working classes and of poor and marginalised groups. Lula relied on broad support among low-income groups and put forward the expansion of social assistance, the improvement of living conditions, and the defence of democratic institutions.
However, Lula’s presidential victory does not mean that the right has retreated or that its threat has ended. Right-wing and far-right forces achieved significant results in the parliamentary elections and at the level of Brazil’s states, confirming their continued political and social influence and their ability to shape legislation and public policy and to obstruct some reforms. Confronting the far right therefore requires sustained political and mass work that goes beyond winning presidential elections.
This issue takes on particular importance as the far right seeks to exploit social anger and turn it against migrants, minorities, and marginalised groups, instead of holding accountable the economic policies that deepen class disparities. The left, in turn, needs a clear discourse and realistic, achievable programmes that link the defence of democratic rights with social justice and open the way for the masses to participate in setting priorities and monitoring their implementation. For this reason, confronting capitalism and the far right cannot be confined to elections and party alliances. It requires active and sustained mass organisations in workplaces, neighbourhoods, universities, trade unions, and social movements, as well as policies that confront class inequality and improve the lives of the majority, so that popular participation is not limited to the ballot box.
Digital Independence: The Fifth Pillar of the Left’s Independence
The Brazilian elections revealed the growing importance of the digital space in political struggle, as social media platforms, algorithms, and artificial intelligence have become powerful tools in the hands of capitalism for shaping public consciousness and for steering and influencing political debates.
The campaign saw accusations, supported by complaints and evidence submitted by Lula’s supporters, of digital bias by Meta, the owner of Facebook, Instagram, and other platforms, in favour of his opponent, and the company acknowledged “technical problems”. The dispute reached the electoral judiciary, which issued a ruling requiring Meta to apply equal standards to the candidates.
This problem is not limited to Brazil. In Colombia’s most recent presidential election in 2026, journalistic investigations exposed coordinated accounts and AI-generated fake videos targeting the leftist camp, as well as major shortcomings in the platforms’ oversight of advertising and political content that benefited the right.
In Germany, Elon Musk, owner of the X platform, openly declared his support for the far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) during the 2025 elections and used his platform to promote its positions and host its leadership, with clear bias in the spread of the party’s content on the platform, according to several studies.
The danger lies in the fact that proving deliberate algorithmic bias is not easy, given closed algorithms whose workings and whose criteria for ranking content and expanding or restricting its reach remain the monopolised knowledge of capitalist companies. It is therefore difficult to identify bias resulting from algorithm design or from deliberate interventions without transparency, independent social and legal oversight, and access to the data needed for investigation. And it is easy for companies to justify this by citing a “technical glitch”!
The Brazilian experience highlighted the importance of combining three interconnected arenas: mass struggle on the ground, legal struggle to hold digital platforms accountable and regulate their operations, and organised digital struggle. Mass mobilization in the streets went hand in hand with legal action against Meta and the development of a broad digital campaign that used social media effectively to reach millions of voters. This experience shows that the left’s digital struggle does not replace mass struggle but can strengthen and complement it.
Here the importance of digital independence emerges as the fifth pillar of the left’s independence, alongside intellectual, organisational, financial, and media independence. It is no longer possible to speak of genuine political independence without an adequate degree of independence in digital tools, platforms, and infrastructure; data protection; and the capacity for mass communication and organisation free from the monopolistic control of capitalist corporations and major powers.
Digital independence does not mean isolation from digital platforms. It means using them now with a critical progressive awareness while working to develop open-source, democratically governed digital alternatives and to build and strengthen independent leftist technical capacities.
A left that does not develop its digital independence and its technological tools will remain at the mercy of its class enemies in one of the most important arenas of contemporary political and social struggle.
Lessons for the Left Worldwide
The Brazilian experience cannot be mechanically replicated, as every society has its own conditions and its own class and political balances. However, its approach to building alliances and joint action offers valuable lessons.
The unity the left needs is not a single party or a central leadership imposing its vision on everyone. It is flexible democratic cooperation among multiple forces, based on common programmes, respect for independence and pluralism, and the genuine participation of the grassroots, youth, and women.
This cooperation can be developed locally, regionally, and globally through variomobilisationus leftist fronts and alliances on the ground, as well as digital leftist networks and internationals that contribute to exchanging experiences, coordinating initiatives and joint struggles, and working toward progressive digital alternatives.
Lula’s victory offers an experience worth studying and learning from, and confirms the possibility of cooperation among leftist forces despite their differences, while taking into account the other factors that contributed to the victory.
The left in our countries does not need to abolish its pluralism in order to unite. It needs to transform that pluralism into an organised and effective political and social force, while strengthening its independence through its five pillars, in confronting the ruling authorities and dominant capitalist forces and all forms of authoritarianism, corruption, and national and religious bigotry, and in the struggle for freedom, equality, and social justice and for the development of democratic and humane socialist alternatives.