As Brazil plunged into a political crisis yesterday after lawmakers authorised impeachment proceedings against President Dilma Rousseff, media outlets stepped in to debate the impact of the decision on Latin America’s biggest country.

“Dilma Rousseff entered the presidency five years ago as a powerful figure who overcame torture and cancer to become Brazil’s first female president,” the Wall Street Journal said in an editorial. “But she is poised to depart as an isolated, unpopular leader who lacked the political savvy to navigate the corruption scandals and economic troubles that beset her administration. On Sunday, Rousseff became the second president impeached by the lower house of Congress since Brazil returned to democracy in 1985. Brazil’s Senate is now widely expected to convict the 68-year-old leader in a political trial that may take weeks to conclude. Officially, the former energy minister was impeached for trying to hide the size of Brazil’s gaping budget deficit. But members of Congress who voted against her made it clear their motivations were broader: A sprawling embezzlement scandal at the state oil firm Petrobras, and a rapidly deteriorating economy that Rousseff showed few signs of being able to turn around.”

The Chicago Tribune observed that though Rousseff faces an ousting from the government, the Brazilian president still has her share of friends. “Her fans sometimes wear T-shirts printed with a famous photo that shows Rousseff on trial by a military court 46 years ago. At age 22, she looks assured and calmly defiant, while her judges — representatives of the military dictatorship then ruling the country — cover their faces with their hands,” the paper said.

“But if Rousseff’s supporters are hoping to stir up sympathy, so far they’ve only deepened the rifts that threaten to tear the country apart… With the impeachment vote over, it’s likely that she’ll have to step aside for up to six months while the Federal Senate decides her fate. That would be an extraordinary fall from grace for a president who, for the past five years, has consistently ranked among the three most powerful female politicians in the world, alongside Hillary Clinton and Germany’s Angela Merkel.”

Explaining the genesis of the current crisis, the newspaper said: “The central paradox of Brazil’s political tumult, though, is that Rousseff doesn’t stand accused of sneakily trying to line her pockets with cash. Instead, her opponents in the National Congress have formally charged her with violating financial rules in the constitution, based on her use of funds from state banks to help close gaps in the budget.”

The New York Times meanwhile admonished the president for what it called serious miscalculations in her battle for political survival. “Astonishingly, she appears to have felt she had political capital to spare when she appointed her predecessor and political mentor, Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, to be chief of staff… Rousseff’s explanation of the decision was tone deaf and ridiculous,” the paper said in an editorial. “Roughly 50 officials — including politicians from other political parties — were implicated in the Petrobras scandal, and Brazilians are rightly disgusted with their leaders. Her blunder pushed the impeachment effort across the finish line, and Rousseff has only herself to blame.”

However, the Washington Post chose to highlight what it said were robust signs of democracy in Brazil and urged the president to resign. “Rousseff has already vowed never to resign and has accused her opponents of attempting ‘a coup against democracy.’ In fact, the silver lining of Brazil’s crisis is that it reflects the country’s maturing democratic institutions and embrace of the rule of law. The federal judge leading the kickback investigation, Sergio Moro, has become a national hero… But the danger is that the country’s political system could unravel, making the critical steps needed to stabilize the economy impossible. Rousseff, whose administration has been virtually paralysed for months, could serve her country best by stepping aside and allowing her vice president to preside over a new coalition cabinet. By digging in, she has pushed Brazil to the brink.”

The Observer focused on the impact of Rousseff’s impeachment on Brazil and said: “The biggest corruption scandal in modern democracy is threatening to take down Brazil’s government. When analysing Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment process, the real worry is that the 28 year-old Brazilian democracy might not survive the clash between the rule of law and the rule of politics. For some, Brazil in 2016 resembles Brazil in 1964, when a civilian president was deposed and replaced by a military regime. The protests could also degenerate into widespread violence, risking intervention by the army.”

Meanwhile, Brazilian media heavyweight Folha De Sau Paulo said in an editorial that Rousseff had lost the ability to govern Brazil. “We regret having to make this conclusion. It’s never desirable to interrupt a presidential mandate won democratically, even through legal means…An overwhelming majority of Brazilians favoured her impeachment. The largest political demonstrations ever seen in Brazil called for her removal from power. As long as Rousseff stays in office, the country will remain tense, paralysed. The main hurdle to Brazil’s recovery is the president,” it said.