There are similarities between both countries in that each  enjoys economic prosperity. In addition, the political parties that both Brazilian president Rousseff and Turkish president, represent have been ruling with overwhelming majorities for 10 years or more.

By the same token, the unprecedented period of economic growth both countries share is translated into national pride and a sense of triumphalism. That feeling of victory and glory leads them to also pursue international ambitions and independent foreign policies. Brazil aspires to obtain a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council, as well as becoming a regional leader and enhancing its world status by deepening relations with the Arab and African world (the South-South alliance).  Brazil’s conduct of foreign policy intentionally opposes the one conducted by the United States and the West. Likewise, Turkey aspires to become a regional leader in the Middle East as it aspires to establish a sort of Neo-Ottomanism.  Turkey would like to become the most dominant and powerful country capable of influencing other countries in the Middle East, particularly the Arab world (which was part of the Turkish-Ottoman empire until WWI).

The Brazilian protests were initially small; carried out by a handful of people who demanded lower bus fares. But in a matter of days one million people gathered to protest the poor quality of public health services, the cost of living, political corruption and, the excessive waste of money invested in the 2014 soccer world cup hosted by Brazil. Trade unions, which usually tend to work in cooperation with the government, also protested in order to voice demands not previously addressed by the government such as reduction of work hours per week, opposition to a law that would reduce retirement payment to early retirees, and other concerns.

The spiral of protests was a set of unrelated demands that originated not in one specific sector but in a set of disparate sectors, groups and social classes (particularly the middle and lower classes). Moreover, it included opponents but also supporters of the government.

One positive element that became apparent was the reaction of Brazilian president,  Rousseff who took these events very seriously and tried to address the protesters’ demands. This reaction by Rousseff shows a democratic and responsible spirit. She clearly stated that “if people complain we need to listen to them”.

I believe that Rousseff’s attitude constitutes a major step in advancing democratic governance as she views civil society as the main source of political decision. This sets up an example for the rest of the countries in the region and particularly those governments like the ALBA countries (Venezuela, Bolivia, Ecuador and Nicaragua) and Argentina that instead of responding to the needs of civil society demand loyalty to their governments because, in their view, only their governments represent the true needs of society.

Yet, despite this show of enlightenment by Rousseff, it is crucial to stress the importance of these protests.

Since 2003, Rousseff’s Workers Party (PT) has been building a situation of hegemony. It has become basically a system of one dominant party.  Today, in Brazil there are close to 30 political parties, which for the most part, work less on constituency demand and more on patronage and pork deals.  There is no real opposition party that can dialogue and negotiate. The PT has also included entrepeneurs and workers and has carried a policy of integration between capital and labor. It has focused on economic growth and redistribution programs. Of course, there is nothing wrong with this. However, the party, by virtue of its success, has turned into the number one arbiter and center of all the demands. Institutions other than the party have been weakened including trade unions, political parties, and other sectors.

It is precisely this situation that led to the protests.

The popularity of the PT reached 90% at one point. The PT has no competitors. This dominance by one party brings about such a concentration of power that it affects the kind of government a country has. The idea of hosting the World Cup and the Olympics is probably influenced by the same monumentality that characterized the emperors and the Popes who built magnificent palaces and cathedrals.

This ostentatiousness has reflected a sense of power and infallibility. However, this illusion of power, hopefully, has been broken in Brazil although the consequences remain to be seen.

Turkey has handled the protests in a different way.

Protests in Turkey began over government construction in Gezi Park, a small urban park in Istanbul that is also one of the few green spaces in the city. However, what began as an environmental protest soon spread to include students, intellectuals and the middle classes who were motivated by the increasing invasion of the government into their private lives and by its increasing power and authority. Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan has sought constitutional reforms aimed at switching the political system to an executive presidential one where he could stay in power until the year 2023 (exactly on the 100^th anniversary of the secular revolution in Turkey). He has also staged trials while trying to influence the courts in their verdict as he has done most recently with the conviction of 300 military men, journalists, academics and others accused of conspiring to depose Mr. Erdogan.

This scenario is inconceivable by many who have suffered Erdogan’s persecution for more than a decade now. In Turkey, those who criticize the government run the risk of being jailed. Media critical of the government has been silenced. Turkey is today an illiberal democracy, an electoral democracy without civil and human rights where freedom is shrinking day by day.

From the beginning, Prime Minister Erdogan not only dismissed the protestors but also appealed to police brutality to discourage them. Indeed, people were killed and thousands were injured. Others lost their eyes. Erdogan accused the international press; CNN, Reuters and others for the events in Turkey. The hysterical Prime Minister also blamed the Turkish political opposition for initiating the protests and later blamed Israel for the episodes.

Like in Brazil, Erdogan’s Party of Justice and Development is in power by virtue of an electoral majority. But contrary to Brazil, Erdogan appeals to the most illegitimate means to hang onto power with the aim of perpetuating himself in power.

Foreign policy thinkers who belong to the Realist school of thought, such as Richard Haas, have stated that it is better for the United States to be involved when a country’s behavior affects other countries and not when a country is dealing with a domestic challenge.

Yet, it is worthy to point out that domestic behavior can set the tone for foreign policy and provides a reflection of how credible the regime is.

As per Turkey, Erdogan’s domestic behavior reflects a leader that cannot be trusted on foreign policy matters. The fact that some mainstream foreign policy thinkers (including some in the Obama Administration) have seen the Turkish model as positive, Erdogan has done nothing but deceive.  His government has tried to get closer to Iran; has intentionally antagonized Israel despite their traditional political and military alliance, and has encouraged the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood to carry out the same anti-democratic measures Turkey implemented.

On these pages I have criticized Brazil’s foreign policy as having been narrow minded and frivolous with regard to democracy and human rights since Brazilia provided international legitimacy to the Venezuelan authoritarian regime. Yet, judging Roussef by the openness with which she has handled the crisis, it provides some hope that things could be different. Brazil, contrary to Turkey, did not abuse its power and did not feel entitled to do it just because a majority voted for it or because it has a record of overall economic success.

In terms of United States policy, it is important that the U.S. strengthen relations with Brazil based on our shared democratic values. For this reason, I have written about the importance of the U.S.-Brazil relationship in repeated articles and in my recently published book “Latin America in the Post-Chavez Era”.  Brazil’s foreign policy can be reversed by virtue of the nature of its democratic rule.

But U.S foreign policy cannot adopt a mere realistic policy that seeks to adapt to circumstances it cannot control. U.S foreign policy makers need to encourage such behavior. Promoting true democracy around the world is not just an evangelical mission. It is also a geo-political interest.