For progressive parties, victory at the ballot box has not translated into a broad political mandate in either Brazil or the United States. Recent results in both countries point to a central challenge: winning power can be very different from building durable public enthusiasm for a governing project. The issue is especially relevant for the Democratic Party and for President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s Workers’ Party, whose electoral successes have come in deeply polarized environments.
In Brazil, official results from the Superior Electoral Court confirmed Lula’s 2022 victory over Jair Bolsonaro by a narrow margin, with 50.9% of valid votes against 49.1%. The outcome returned Lula to the presidency, but it also revealed a sharply divided electorate. His administration has had to govern through alliances beyond the left, while facing a Congress in which conservative forces remain influential. That balance limits the ability of the Workers’ Party to treat the election as a sweeping endorsement of its full programme.
The United States presents a different institutional picture but a similar political lesson. The Democrats won the White House in 2020, with certified results published by the Federal Election Commission, yet the party has continued to operate within a closely split political landscape. Control of Congress has shifted, state-level contests remain fiercely competitive, and national elections are often decided by narrow margins in a limited number of battleground states. These conditions make it difficult for any party to claim a comprehensive mandate, even after a national victory.
The broader significance goes beyond party strategy. In both countries, progressive leaders are facing electorates concerned with living costs, public services, security, jobs and democratic stability. Campaigns built primarily around defeating a polarizing opponent can succeed electorally, but governing requires a clearer connection between policy choices and voters’ daily priorities. Without that connection, support can remain defensive rather than affirmative, leaving administrations exposed to rapid disappointment and political backlash.
Brazil and the United States also show how polarization can distort the meaning of elections. A narrow win may be enough to govern legally, but it does not automatically settle debates over economic policy, institutional reform or social priorities. For progressives, the lesson is not that recent victories lack legitimacy; it is that legitimacy alone is not the same as momentum. Turning fragile coalitions into lasting support remains the central test.
