[ad_1]
Agreement reached between the heads of the judiciary, the legislature and the executive Around the Parliamentary Amendment Greeted by the President Lula As a sign “Brazil is back to normal”It is hard to predict whether reconciliation will interrupt the great power struggle we have been engaged in for the past decade. If such reconciliation brings any normalcy, it will be very different from the life we lived before 2013.
The Brazilian constitutional arrangement is characterized by a relationship of dominance of the executive over the legislative branch, a relationship known as “executive-legislative dominance.” “Joint Presidential System”The president-elect is given a range of legislative and budgetary powers, forms a coalition of parties to govern, and runs in the next election.
Scandal after scandal corruption Politics, linked to the lack of ability to reach consensus on relevant issues, overwhelms the judicial system and leads to the Supreme Court taking the lead in many cases.
The reaction is “Supreme democracy” It came first of all from the political parties after Bolsonaro. The alliance with Bolsonaro through Operation Car Wash and the capitulation of the Attorney General’s Office led to concessions by the Supreme Court in the fight against corruption and the re-establishment of dialogue with the political class.
At the same time, the National Congress has benefited from the fragility of the Dilma, Temer and Bolsonaro governments, seizing privileges from the executive. It has taken an ever-larger share of the budget. He has also taken the opportunity to increase the public financing of political parties. With binding amendments and money in their pockets, the deputies are in a dominant position, at least relative to the executive.
In fact, Brazilian constitutional democracy has survived the various crises that have occurred since 2013, most importantly Far right attacksHowever, this does not mean that the constitutional system has emerged unscathed from this conflict.
Political crises herald shifts in constitutional arrangements. Institutional struggles result in some expanding their privileges and others losing. Some of these changes come with formal changes to the text of the constitution, consolidating victories, such as transferring control of parts of the budget to the legislature. Others are the result of changes in the Constitutional Court’s position, such as weakening the rights of workers and indigenous peoples, without any changes to the constitutional text.
The new normal recognized by the Conference of Powers indicates a worrying change in constitutional arrangements. Progress in which the legislature consolidates the functions of government but does not assume the responsibilities that flow from those functions. Thus, a regime of coexistence of powers emerges, without the legislature being subject to the same system of political accountability as in a parliamentary regime.
The space for the executive branch is unclear. But in a country that lacks structured and coherent public policies, it is very worrying to see the government subordinated to the fragmented allocation of resources decided by parliamentarians in fundamental areas such as education, health, infrastructure or security.
In turn, the Supreme Court has shown signs that it intends to take on the following responsibilities: More mediation features How do we democratically justify the role that the Supreme Court has given itself?
Regaining normality may seem like a good thing. The risk, however, is that we normalise the shortcomings of an already problematic constitutional arrangement, rather than its strengths.
Link exists: Did you enjoy this text? Subscribers can access it seven times a day for free via any link. Just click on the blue F below.
[ad_2]
Source link
