This is the great failure of the democratic system that was built under the auspices of 1988. In the 36 years since its promulgation, the country has promoted profound reforms in the social protection system. They allowed the universalization of primary health care through; access to basic education for all — in addition to the expansion of secondary and higher education; the existence of a robust set of assistance policies organized in the (Single Social Assistance System), anchored in and in the (Continuous Payment Benefit).
For advances in the social area, it was essential to find a formula to produce cooperation between governments at the three levels of the federation. Thus, the existence, in each area of action, of networks of specialists that moved between the academic world and practice was decisive. In this connection, diagnoses of the legacy of previous policies were generated and innovations were produced guided by comprehensive ideas of what to do. Put another way, thinking and institutions enabled intergovernmental collaboration — with one exception.
In the 2020 book, professor Daniel Vargas, from the FGV Law School, argues that constitutional rules and opposing views on this topic have been blocking progress. On the one hand, the 1988 Charter established a decentralized security regime, with the center of gravity in the states; compartmentalized between the various bodies responsible for maintaining order and combating crime (police, Public Ministry, Judiciary and penitentiary system); and rigid, due to the establishment, detailed in law, of the responsibilities of each of them.
On the other hand, two influential and diametrically opposed views made it difficult to converge around innovative institutional solutions. The first, typical of the right wing, which uses and abuses it for electoral purposes, is . In other words, in its most polished version, the belief that things can be resolved with more jail time and toughening of criminal law. Its crudest translation is the legitimization of unrestrained police violence.
The second vision would be typical of progressives. These, captive to the memory of the excesses of the military dictatorship, are unable to go beyond their principled opposition to the primacy of barbarism offered by punitivism.
Under democracy, there was no shortage of experiences in the states. Although promising, they were abandoned without generating lasting legacies. Nor was there a lack of awareness of the need for federative articulation both in the 2018 law that created the (Single Public Security System) and in the Minister of Justice’s proposal to transform it into a constitutional device.
But, everything will continue as it is —a consummate disaster— until, first, a more pragmatic, influential community of experts emerges, capable of building consensus and thinking about incentives for cooperation between the federation entities and the different bodies of the security system. . And, secondly, especially as long as Brasília is not willing to give due attention to what is a priority for Brazilians.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
