Brazilian political system is not seen with good eyes – 07/12/2023 – Maria Hermínia Tavares

The Brazilian political system is not viewed favorably by the vast majority of academics and journalists. Both seek to persuade lay people that nothing or very little is good in coalition presidentialism, a corollary of a notoriously fragmented party system. In particular, they invest against the sharing of ministries and top-level positions, vital for the formation of the governing base in Congress, and the policy of releasing resources for parliamentary amendments, which greases the approval of projects of interest to the government.

Many still judge the power of governors in national affairs to be excessive. And they say they are concerned about the judicialization of political disputes and the role of judicial institutions, particularly the STF (Federal Supreme Court) and the TSE (Superior Electoral Court).

For critics, this system stalls decisions; it is based on expensive take-there, give-and-take; makes it difficult to adopt important reforms; and it multiplies the opportunities for the misappropriation of public resources — the old and omnipresent corruption.

Perhaps it is time to counter the criticism with the advantages of a system that prevents excessive concentration of power in the Executive, as well as government by a single majority party. As a result, it forces negotiation between different interests, the search for consensus and, in this process, favors moderate solutions. Lastly, most importantly: its role as a dam to contain the outbursts of a representative with an authoritarian vocation.

In the recent past, these were the institutions that prevented Bolsonaro from exercising his despotism, limiting the damage of his destructive policies. Just imagine what the ex-captain’s visit to Brasília could have been like, had he had a majority party in Congress; the prerogative of appointing agents to administer regions without autonomy from the central government; and, finally, had a subjugated judiciary.

It is this arrangement considered to be ill-conceived, in which political negotiation is as raw as it is open, which has allowed, through the search for convergences, the definition of new fiscal rules and the long-awaited Tax Reform. And more than allowing it, it requires a government willing and able to dialogue in order to arrive at what the Minister of Indigenous Peoples, Sônia Guajajara, in a recent interview with Valor newspaper, called a “middle ground” solution when dealing with the controversial time frame for the demarcation of indigenous lands. After all, middle ground, negotiation, moderation, consensus building are some of the many names of democratic politics. Before like this.

I take a week off. I’ll be back at the end of the month.

PRESENT LINK: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release five free hits of any link per day. Just click the blue F below.