Democracy, although not perfect, has its merits mainly because it allows the alternation of power; Americans had to take a drastic initiative
This February 27 can be an opportunity for reflection for a theme that needs to be discussed urgently by Brazilian congressmen: the Institute of Reelection. This date marked a moment of transformation on this theme for Americans. Let’s go to the story.
When we see a clauding government without defined plans, taking populist measures only to continue in power, we think the rules for the reelection of the rulers would need to be modified. Stay with the presidential track for eight years, that’s fine. Back after a four -year break is complicated.
It’s too long
What scares is a ruler to be in power for eight years and then eight more. With inconsequential measures just to please the most unsuspecting voters, this becomes possible – and the risk of breaking the country is real. It doesn’t work. A, although not perfect, has its merits mainly because it allows the alternation of power.
Americans had to take a drastic initiative. Franklin D. Roosevelt was in the White House from 1933 to 1945, with successive mandates. This permanence in office for so many years could result in concentration of power. Therefore, on March 21, 1947, the 22nd Amendment to the Constitution was proposed by Congress and submitted to the states for ratification.
A striking date
On February 27, 1951, the 22nd amendment was ratified, moving away from this risk to the nation. She established that the same person could only hold the position of president for two terms. It is the example of. As he had already ruled the country from 2017 to 2021, as soon as this new term started in 2025, he can no longer apply.
There is an exception. If someone needs to replace the president for less than two years, he could hold office for both terms, more than two years. That is, it may remain in office for almost 10 years.
Brazilian casuism
In Brazil, there was a change in the rules with the game in progress. The possibility of reelection was instituted by Constitutional Amendment No. 16 in 1997. He was President of the Republic Fernando Henrique Cardoso. As he benefited from the change, many stated that the then president participated in the purchase of votes that allowed the approval.
FHC denies that he had any interference, but stated in an interview in Estadão five years ago, on February 6, 2020, that the approval of this amendment was a mistake. This has been the behavior of politicians. They say they are against reelection after they leave the government, such as Fernando Henrique, or during the campaign, as with the majority. Once they occupy the position, they forget what they defended.
A five -year term
Vira and moves appears here in Brazil a parliamentarian presenting a project to limit this possibility of reelection with only one interval of four years. If such a rule were approved, Lula could no longer apply. Some also want to end reelection. The occupants of executive positions would have a five -year term and could no longer compete for reelection in successive mandate.
Unfortunately, this discussion only appears when the situation in the country goes badly. After turbulence, no one else touches the subject. It looks like casuism. The important thing is to establish norms for the future, more as a matter of state than government.
74 years of good history
This alternation established by a constitutional amendment proposal (PEC) could slow down the strong polarization and prevent ideological groups from taking over power indefinitely.
The example given by the United States on February 27 as today can be a good parameter for analysis and discussion. After 74 years, the changes showed to be right. And as they say that Brazil works as if it were the ‘orloff effect’ of Americans, with a certain delay, it would be possible to make this decal with a good history of success. Let us not forget that every now and then appears in every corner of the world a government with appetite to perpetuate itself in power.
Nothing prevents one time or another from appearing one of these centralizers and hungry for staying in office forever. Oh, and if the inspectors on duty hesitates, before leaving they use the government machine to elect a family member. If it is by free and transparent vote, all right, otherwise God free us. No, we don’t deserve it. Follow on Instagram: @polito
*This text does not necessarily reflect the opinion of the young Pan.
