The Accountability Gap: Global Contrasts and Responses to Political Corruption and Crime 

PHOTO: My Right My Decision rally United States, Salud Carbajal on Wikimedia Commons

Political accountability in a stable democracy demands that leaders in the highest levels of power are answerable to the public and are held accountable for any abuse of power by governing institutions. However, when certain states refuse to demand accountability and allow for corruption in the highest levels of power to go unchecked, it can lead to the normalisation of authoritarian leadership or practices, threatening the very fabric of democracy. With two different judicial systems and political histories, the US and Brazil reveal contrasting lessons in the value of accountability in the face of political corruption.  

Crime and Punishment 

Regarded as the world’s oldest continuing democracy, the US has often portrayed itself as a global leader of democratic norms. Domestically, the US stands out as a nation with a strong representative democracy with 435 voting members of the US House of Representatives representing 802,000 people each, making it a higher representative ratio than any other democracy except India. Internationally, the US has been seen as a model for achieving democratic government with countries like 18th century France drawing inspiration from the American experiment of self-government for its own revolution. 

However, with the 250th anniversary of US independence, the health of US democracy seems to be in decline as the Pew Research Centre reports that the US experienced a more significant fall in democracy than other high-income democracies. In recent years, Americans have also grown less trustful of institutions, including the federal government and major political parties. Strong democratic institutions are major cornerstones for a healthy democracy as they can enforce accountability and prevent abuses of power. Institutions are particularly crucial in achieving horizontal accountability, which is where institutions are tied to the rule of law and hold political authorities accountable when they violate the law. Several former US presidents have overstepped their presidential powers and been subjected to horizontal accountability such as Richard Nixon, who was impeached by Congress and forced to resign after ‘Watergate’ and Bill Clinton, who was also impeached by the House of Representatives for perjury and obstruction of justice linked to his extramarital affair. 

While multiple political leaders before have proven that the US is not immune to political corruption, the Trump presidency in its second term is signalling an unprecedented time in global politics for moral leadership. In May 2024, President Donald Trump was convicted of 34 felony counts of falsified business records by jurors in the New York criminal trial. Amidst an array of other legal battles, this made the president the first convicted felon to ever win a presidential election in US history, but was later sentenced to an “unconditional discharge” by a judge, removing any fine, imprisonment, or probation supervision for the president but still upholding the conviction. The moral conduct of the president has also been compared to his female political opponents, who some claim are often held to a higher moral and ethical standard. For instance, during the 2024 US presidential election, influential figures such as Michelle Obama acknowledged the double standards, stating how women like Kamala Harris are expected to be perfect, while Trump’s controversial behaviour is normalised. 

PHOTO: Protestors outside Trump’s trial in New York, Swinxy on Wikimedia Commons

Beyond personal conduct, the unilateralism of the Trump administration overseas, with President Trump acting as the commander-in-chief, has also received international condemnation and sparked conversations about the broader consequences of unchecked power. For instance, in January 2026, the illegal nature of the US capture of Venezuela’s president Nicolas Maduro was critiqued as international law prohibits the use of force in international relations except for authorisation by the UN Security Council or for self-defence. A month later, the administration’s war on Iran was also considered to be illegal by some legal experts, who claimed that there was no imminent threat posed by Iran for the US to use force or use self-defence as justification. 

In an anarchical world, it is challenging to hold world leaders accountable for their actions due to the absence of central authority, however at the state level, there are institutions available to achieve this. While some states struggle with accountability due to structural, constitutional or political reasons, other states give an important reminder that even when democracy is at its most fragile, accountability is still possible.  

Accountability v Impunity 

On January 6, 2021, President Trump received his second impeachment from the US House of Representatives, for inciting an insurrection on the Capitol with the attempt to overturn the results of the 2020 US election. However, the historic impeachment trial came to an end when the president was acquitted by the Senate. This outcome was especially shocking following the prosecution case brought forward by Former US Special Counsel Jack Smith which showed evidence that the president sought to block the peaceful transfer of power, instead of accepting the election outcome. While this trial was a political process aimed at judging whether an official was upholding their oath of office or not and not a criminal proceeding, the outcome of the trial still exposed the fragility of America’s democratic traditions. A year after the Capitol insurrection, the US’s Southern American ally, Brazil, faced a similar incident as former President Jair Bolsonaro also attempted to incite an insurrection, seeking to overturn the results of the 2022 election, which he lost to his left-wing rival, President Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva. 

Often referred to as the “Trump of the tropics”, Bolsonaro was often compared to Trump, due to similar personalities, populist far right messages and political campaigns on contentious issues. Similarly, Bolsonaro’s insurrection attempt also mirrored Trump’s as both leaders spread claims of election fraud prior to their respective elections in the effort to undermine voter trust in the electoral system. Both leaders were mobilised by online rhetoric warning of an imminent “communist” takeover of their countries. While supporters of Bolsonaro stormed the Supreme Court and pressured armed forces to intervene in support, which differed to the January 6th insurrection when Trump supporters stormed the Capitol without military intervention, both cases displayed scenes of violence and vandalism by the crowds involved. 

However, the most striking difference between these two insurrection attempts was the accountability in the aftermath. While Trump was acquitted by the Senate, Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in jail in 2025 by the Supreme Court after being found guilty of plotting a coup. 

This leads to the question – why was one state successful in their accountability while the other not?

The main reason is Brazil’s institutional resilience by the Federal Supreme Court and the Supreme Electoral Court. The Brazilian Supreme Court, consisting of a panel of five justices, has the authority to preside over criminal charges against high level political officials. Hence, the five member panel led by Supreme Court justice Alexandre de Moraes voted to convict Bolsonaro on all five charges which include attempting to orchestrate a coup, directing an armed criminal organisation, and seeking to violently dismantle Brazil’s democratic rule of law. Brazil’s 1988 Constitution played a major role, as it established the Judiciary’s independence by restricting “interference by the armed forces, whether official or semi-official according to Brazilian politics”. Therefore, it guarantees that politicians like Bolsonaro cannot undermine democratic institutions. In comparison, while the US Supreme Court also tries cases involving high-level officials, they provide more presidential immunity, thereby shielding presidents from legal accountability. For instance, in the case of Trump vs United States the Supreme Court ruled that presidents have an absolute immunity from prosecution from core official acts, citing the separation of powers doctrine embedded in the constitution as the reason. Conservative Judge John Roberts, who made the presidential immunity ruling, was known to issue ‘Trump-friendly rulings’, demonstrating the impact of partisan judicial decision-making. While law experts claim that politics has always played a role in decision-making, the parties themselves are becoming more polarised and judicial ideologies more contentious, thereby changing the dynamics of the court. 

Additionally, Brazil also has a fragmented political party system, where 24 political parties are represented in the Brazilian National Congress. Due to this fragmentation, it is difficult for a single party to win a majority in an election, encouraging coalition building. This multi-party system varies significantly to the two-party system in the US, where the parties, the Democrats and Republicans, are in opposition, increasing the likelihood of political polarisation and resulting in a legislative deadlock on contentious issues. For instance, the Democratic-controlled US House of Representatives passed the vote to impeach Trump, making it the most bipartisan vote on a presidential impeachment in history. However, the Republican-controlled Senate ultimately voted to acquit the president, underscoring the deep divisions within the US political system. This differed to the fragmented Brazilian right, represented by at least four parties in Congress, who were not particularly in favour of Bolsonaro. 

PHOTO: Former President Jair Bolsonaro in the gallery, while the Supreme Court ministers hand down their judgment Gustavo Moreno/ STF on Wikimedia Commons 

However, Brazil’s model of democracy is far from perfect, as the country continues to face various threats. Certain scholars claim that after Bolsonaro’s trial, politics in the nation has become increasingly polarised, resembling US politics, as many far-right figures have strongly opposed the ruling by the Brazilian Supreme Court. This polarisation is also visible in their National Congress since a conservative-majority Congress approved a bill in April 2026 to reduce the jail sentence of Bolsonaro, making his sentence fall from 27 years and three months to 22 years and one month, if confirmed by the Supreme Court. Alongside polarisation, political dynasties are another significant threat to a democracy, as it erodes the chances of fair and equal electoral representation for non-dynastic politicians. Hence, political dynasties in Brazil continue to be prevalent with the son of Jair Bolsonaro, Flavio Bolsonaro, launching his campaign for the October 2026 presidential election. Mirroring his father’s trajectory, Flavio Bolsonaro is also facing a corruption scandal over the unlawful financing of a film about his father, which is negatively affecting his polls ahead of the election. 

Despite these recent developments, the democratic achievements of Brazil have not been undermined, as the country has proven to show resilience even during turbulent political eras, shaping the outcome that made Brazil’s accountability successful today. 

Court trials and tribulations

In 1964, the right wing armed forces overthrew the democratically elected president, Joao Goulart, resulting in a military dictatorship rule from 1964 to 1985 in Brazil. During this period, the military junta implemented Institutional Acts which included dissolving the National Congress, suspending elections and the censorship of media. However, after a period of economic instabilities and anti-establishment campaigns such as the Diretas Jar campaign, the election of Jose Sarney influenced the drafting of the 1988 Constitution. The 1988 Constitution embedded strong judicial independence, facilitated democratic elections, and introduced transparency mechanisms forming Brazil’s modern accountability framework. 

PHOTO: Events leading up to the 1964 coup, Arquivo Nacional on Wikimedia Commons 

Brazil’s political history has enabled not just the development of systems to protect democracy, but also embedded a memory in its citizens that helps recognise signs of authoritarianism which trigger urgent action. Alternatively, other states such as the US who lack experiences with authoritarian leadership domestically might overlook the same signs.

There have been a series of events in US history that resembled authoritarian practices. For instance, the McCarthy era involved the brutal targeting of individuals who were suspected to be supporters of Soviet Union Communism. This resulted in mass job losses and blacklisting. According to Amnesty International, government repression has been considered as an authoritarian practice. Furthermore, the Jim Crow era, which marginalised African Americans, could also be described as an authoritarian practice due to its brutal prosecution of those who defied the Jim Crow laws. 

However, due to the US constitutional order that has historically ensured civilian control over military rule, experiences of a dictatorship have been unlikely in the US making the signs of democratic backsliding less prominent. Instead the US has shown interest in overturning authoritarian rule internationally, such as the toppling of Muhammar Gaddafi’s regime in Libya and most recently, the Iran war, which also aimed for regime change. Alternatively, US support for the Brazilian military’s anti-communist interests during the Cold War, showed that the US also supported military dictatorships overseas, particularly when it aligned with their ideologies. 

Despite authoritarian histories, if the past fails to resonate and institutions fail to implement change, accountability may have to depend on other influential actors. 

No one is above the law 

Vertical accountability, another type of accountability, refers to the process by which voters discipline those in power. Although this is primarily executed through elections, protests may also be an effective way to execute this accountability. The right to protest is especially important for a healthy democracy as seen with the Diretas Jar movement, as it can call out injustices and especially demand change for a better future. The US in particular has seen strong mobilisation efforts by the citizens to protest the actions of President Trump and his administration. The No Kings Protest in March 2026, meant to be an anti-authoritarian rally protesting the Trump administration, was recorded to include the greatest number of protests in a single day in US history, with a number of 3,300 events happening across the country. The protests drew people across various issues, from the administration’s ICE raids and war in Iran to the leadership of Trump himself. 

PHOTO: No Kings protest in Aurora, Colorado, Fibonacci Blue on Wikimedia Commons

Hence, significant gains have been made in the effort to enforce accountability in the US which echo similar trends in the other regions such as South Asia. In recent years, anti-government protests have erupted across the region. Most recently, the Cockroach Janta party protests in India have mobilised millions of young people against the Modi government over criticisms that the government was not taking responsibility for the medical exam leaks that affected millions of students. Calls for accountability have shown success, as India’s Education Minister, Dharmendra Pradhan, has since resigned, proving the important role of the people in achieving accountability. 

The paradox of democracy is that while it can be easily dismantled, it takes years to rebuild, making one of its pillars, accountability, incredibly valuable. States like the US, with immense hard and soft power, don’t just have the ability to shape the international system but also have the ability to influence leader behaviors and political trends internationally. Hence, examples set in the US for accountability are not just pivotal for its own democratic stability, but potentially for the stability of the entire international system. 

If you are interested and want to know more about topics like populism and authoritarianism and want to hear more about it, you can listen to Season 6 Episode 3 of ATLAS on Spotify and YouTube featuring Dr Benjamin Moffitt. ATLAS is a student-led podcast hosted by the Monash International Affairs Society.