Semi-presidentialism is discussed 30 years after plebiscite – 12/24/2023 – Power

Three decades have passed since Brazilians chose at the polls to maintain presidentialism as the country’s political system in a plebiscite following the 1988 Constitution. The matter, however, remains on the agenda of the National Congress after years of political crisis, which included a second impeachment and, more recently, coup attacks.

Two of the country’s most influential authorities — the president of the Chamber of Deputies, Arthur Lira (PP-AL), and the dean of the STF (Supreme Federal Court), Gilmar Mendes — argue that Brazil should adopt semi-presidentialism despite the vote in the current government model, approved by the population in 1993.

The topic even gained a working group to debate the topic in the Chamber last year. The idea of ​​parliamentarians in favor of the change would be to implement the system from 2030.

On April 21, 1993, a plebiscite gave Brazilians the chance to choose between monarchy and republic as a form of government, and to choose between parliamentarism and presidentialism as a system.

The consultation was carried out by popular vote and was a consequence of the 1988 Constitution, which provided for in article 2 of the ADCT (Transitional Constitutional Provisions Act) the call for voters to choose how they would be governed.

In a universe with just over 90 million people eligible to vote at the time, 67 million went to the polls. As a result, the country has a republican and presidential regime.

To govern in a scenario of party fragmentation, the head of the Executive is led to form coalitions — a circumstance called “coalition presidentialism” by political scientists.

In other words, governability depends on forming alliances with parliamentarians from different ideological spectrums. Part of the parties opposing the president join the government and form a broad coalition, which involves factors such as release of funds and access to positions. The results in terms of project support are not always as expected.

The debate about changing the government system intensified after the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff (PT) in 2016. Michel Temer (MDB) took over the discussion, which gained support from Gilmar and Luís Roberto Barroso.

The crisis between the Powers and the strengthening of Congress in the figure of Lira during the Jair Bolsonaro (PL) government empowered the president of the Chamber, who began to position himself in favor of the semi-presidential system.

The proposed semi-presidentialism would be a mix of parliamentarism and presidentialism. In this way, the president, directly elected, would share functions with the prime minister, elected by Parliament or chosen by the president himself — the form of choice changes depending on the model adopted.

Countries such as Portugal, France and Finland are references in this system in a stabilized manner.

In favor of semi-presidentialism, Gilmar told Sheet that, considering the current importance of Congress, it is necessary to think of a new way of establishing the government.

“There are difficulties in implementation, but we also have difficulties today, with the context in which we are inserted. Those who did not build a parliamentary base did not finish the government. We are not talking about something merely theoretical, but something that is relevant to the system’s own stability.”

He also said: “Do we have a presidential model today? Is our presidentialism actually pure? How pure is it? And, from that, we have to look at all these practices that are evident.”

In July, Lira argued that semi-presidentialism could bring “structural” changes to the country, and stated that he sees the Brazilian Constitution as parliamentary in the midst of a presidential system, which generates criticism of the coalition system.

“Unfortunately, in parliamentarism or in other more modern management systems around the world, we do not have party identification. We have a dispersion of parties. But, in semi-presidentialism, in Brazilian ways, with the President of the Republic having his duties as head of State, it is entirely possible”, he said in an interview with the Roda Viva program, on TV Cultura.

Luiz Felipe Alencastro, historian and professor at FGV (Fundação Getulio Vargas), criticizes the deadline set by the Chamber’s working group for 2030 and states that there is no precedent of this type. He highlights the need to remember the Peruvian and Russian regimes in addition to the positive examples.

“In Peru, semi-presidentialism was the object of so many coups and authoritarian measures that today it is a symbolic thing. Russia also demonstrates that you can very well transform semi-presidentialism into an almost dictatorship”, says the professor.

Alencastro says there is still a legal problem in the implementation of semi-presidentialism: its unconstitutionality. “One of the fundamental clauses of the Constitution is not to change the division of Powers. Semi-presidentialism will give much more power to the Legislative to the detriment of the Executive. This is a change in Powers, a problem that would be questioned in the Supreme Court.”

One of the members of the working group that discussed the topic in the Chamber was federal deputy Luiz Philippe de Orleans e Bragança (PL-SP). He states that there are “good and bad models” of semi-presidentialism, and says he prefers parliamentarism due to fear of excessive dominance of one Power over the other, which, according to him, could lead the country to a dictatorship.

For him, the parliamentary model would be ideal. “The prime minister would be chosen just like the president, elected almost like a president. This would force something that we don’t have yet — and wouldn’t have in semi-presidentialism either —, which is for you to form a coalition before the elections,” he says .

The sociologist and columnist for Sheet Celso Rocha de Barros sees the regime change as an attempt to expand the power of Congress. The country’s political scenario, according to him, is being reconfigured due to an increasingly powerful Legislature and a crisis in presidentialism.

“We had a sequence of politically weak presidents. We had Dilma’s impeachment, the circumstances of Temer’s inauguration and Bolsonaro’s little government activity. While the Executive was not organizing itself, Congress took power for itself”, he says.

According to the sociologist, changing the Brazilian political system to semi-presidentialism could be dangerous and generate political instability. He assesses that the division of powers between the president and the prime minister in this model makes it difficult for voters to hold them accountable at the polls.

Barros states that coalition presidentialism can work, given the negotiation resources for the president to dialogue with Congress, such as positions and parliamentary amendments. And he criticizes the relationship made between the current government system in the country and corruption.

“Corruption was much more linked to the fact that campaign financing was private and the supervision of the Judiciary and control bodies was very flawed. I think it’s a little unfair for you to blame Brazilian corruption on coalition presidentialism.”

Collaborated Pedro de Alencarfrom Salvador