The tendency is for more tense relationships between executive and legislative and this should be aggravated by the anticipation of the electoral dispute. The evaluation is from the political scientist of Trends, Rafael Cortez, to Infomoney. “It is a game of forces that both powers use, each with its own possibilities, within the institutional limits,” he says.
For Cortez, when Lula vetoed the increase in the number of deputies, he tried to maintain a connection with the public opinion more favorable to him.
“To have to vote on the veto is to eventually expose leaders to negative guidelines. This is the strategic game of the veto. The veto is a way for the president to impose more reputational costs on this legislative majority,” explains the political scientist.
Also read:
On the other hand, the government will take advantage of the positive wave to put other popular measures on the agenda, such as working hours from 6 to 1, supersalaries and taxation of the richest. This, second, Cortez, places the government in a position closer to public opinion.
He states that this conflicting division is the new balance of Brazilian politics. The agenda of US President Donald Trump, however, can cause punctual approach between powers, which will result in some cooperation. “But I don’t imagine this harmony in what we’re going to call Post-Trump here,” he adds.
See the main excerpts of the interview with political scientist Rafael Cortez:
Infomoney – The government got a certain victory in the Supreme Court compared to IOF and President Lula vetoed the increase in the number of deputies. Already the Chamber decided to retaliate and, including with increased costs. Does this make it even more difficult for the relationship between the executive and the legislature?
Rafael Cortez – It is a game of forces that both powers use, each with its own possibilities, within the institutional limits. It shows that this honeymoon that can appear from the consequences of the agenda of US President Donald Trump will not extend to other agendas.
Guarantee up to 55% discount on your ticket at Expert 2025
The tendency is for the government to have new defeats and eventually veto manifestations of the legislature so that the legislature is cost to take a certain measure. This is what we should have, defeats on the government’s side, when legislative leaders put themes that they know that the government is minority and, on the other hand, the legislature with the reputational cost, from the vetoes that President Lula will eventually do.
The case of increasing the number of parliamentarians is a very popular theme, easily accessible to the electorate.
IM – On the other hand, Congress also has the means of retaliation. For example, not putting government projects on the agenda and voting for costs. Is it a two -way road?
RC – Yeah, there is each one with their institutional powers. The power of party leaders is to guide the legislative agenda and the power of the president is to propose the legislation. Above all to impose defeats on the legislature through the use of vetoes. And, in turn, the legislature has the possibility of overthrowing the vetoes. So, who gives the last word, in terms of legislative production, is still the legislature. Eventually, House and Senate overthrow the presidential veto, but as it is a game, especially public opinion, right? So, having to vote on the veto is eventually exposing leaders to negative guidelines. This is the strategic game of the veto. The veto is a way for the president to impose more reputational costs on this legislative majority.
IM – How should the executive’s relationship with the legislature go from now on?
RC – I think the tendency is for tense relationships between executive and legislature despite important environmental changes in the political scenario. It was already a trend that was obviously very intensified, in the light of the defeats the government suffered. But, I think the fundamental point of the Brazilian political system, with a very clear division between the powers and, in some cases, this conflicting division, this is the new balance of Brazilian politics. Obviously, it is aggravated by the anticipation of electoral issues, the management problems of this institutional design and political choices.
Continues after advertising
For example, Minister Fernando Haddad made the IOF decree without proper ties with the legislature, which later did not fulfill the agreements that were at some point tempted to build. And this will hit the Federal Supreme Court. This removal had been bringing increasing costs to the executive’s agenda.
When US President Donald Trump comes with taxation, a door, an opportunity for closer approach, opened. Now, it is an approximation, in my reading, the best of scenarios, in the most optimistic scenario, that will result in cooperation in what is the consequences of Trump’s agenda. I do not imagine this harmony in what we will call here Post-Trump. I do not imagine that spread to other areas of public policy, other debates that are happening in parallel to this.
IM – The government caused by Trump to impose a positive agenda, such as the veto to increase the number of deputies?
Continues after advertising
RC – President Lula, when he makes the veto, is also an attempt to maintain this connection with the most favorable public opinion. So from the trigger Trump gave and other topics that the government rehearsed to have better communication, to put some themes in which it is aligned with the majority position of society. I think Lula did this in the experience, knowing the boundaries that cooperation scenes generate. The government tried to do the cooperation scenes, but seems to have no confidence.
IM – Is the decision of Minister Alexandre de Moraes on IOF is a punctual matter or is it also more element to shuffle the game, including the judiciary?
RC – The Supreme is also arbitrator of these conflicts. When these conflicts escape politics, they can reach the Federal Supreme Court. And then, in this case, the result of this game is out of political action. So the Supreme sometimes gets in the way, sometimes it helps, in this case he even gave the powers the opportunity to organize the issue of IOF and again it did not happen. And then the Supreme manifests itself when called by the political agents themselves, sometimes the government, sometimes the legislature.
The decision of Minister Alexandre de Moraes, yesterday, seems to be important, because it gains most of the content of the initial government decree. It restores the legitimacy of the government to edit decrees on items that are already subject to legislation and, therefore, can exercise regulation by decrees. Obviously, this does not prevent Congress from in the future again a decree.
Continues after advertising
The Supreme’s decision may eventually decrease the ambition of legislators in this barbs and losses so that they are more conservative and do not test the functionality of a matter.
