There is a curious dynamic about and abuse of power. When a political group is hegemonic and in power, and its hegemony is overwhelming, there is no record of complaints for two reasons. This group typically and control institutions, including congressional; Legislative opposition will thus have low ability to focus on corruption. The complaints, therefore, will have little visibility. Individual and collective actions of civil society will be so lucky: there are few incentives for complaints. After all, why act if the chances of these actions thrive are low? When there is no hegemonic group, but two competitive, incentives are different. The more competitive the system, the more incentives for creating a scandal that affects the incumbent.
When alternating in power, a conflict arises that leads to institutional change: previous arrangements and legislation, they are attacked. The dynamics are fundamentally incumbent onset, but translates from
This is what we are currently watching in relation to the attacks of. The law was passed in 2010 in the wake of the monthly. Product of an alliance of the National Council of Bishops of Brazil and the TSE, it was the second popular initiative law of the country. In that year’s fraternity campaign the dioceses mobilized to obtain 1.6 million signatures and unanimously approved by Congress. The 1,500 public hearings on the law were held throughout Brazil by the TSE.
But the same goes for other actors and institutions. O, a, and the, which were vilified by the PT, when it was an incumbent, began to be defended by the party. For defending in the past the anti -corruption flag, to Brizola, “the PT was the UDN of overalls.” Yes, the UDN that was the party that denounced corruption and the Getulist abuse.
And vice versa, in relation to pockets.
There are two hypothetical scenarios that can result from a new competitive political configuration. The first is a virtuous cycle that is marked by a certain collective learning, in which alleged monopolies of virtue disappear. The electorate learns to distinguish between rhetoric and reality. The actors internalize the change. Excesses are mitigated. Institutional arrangements and legislation are perfected.
The second scenario is vicious: a combination of brutal setback and widespread collusion. The resulting balance is perverse: “You do not denounce my amendment and I do not denounce yours.” He produces institutional malaise and widespread civic cynicism: “They are all flour in the same bag.” But balance only breaks for disruptive actions, antisystem. Outsiders incentives are created.
The first scenario represents the historical trajectory of advanced democracies (). The second is the trap of low quality democracy that keeps predatory dynamics.
In our recent trajectory there are virtuous dynamics but they are unfeasible in high polarization contexts. And an explosive combination of ultra reaction to combating corruption (as we have seen in relation to Lava Jato) and persistence of a predatory balance.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
