The Supreme has been under attack for over 15 years, although the. What has changed is your opponents. OS and the reception by the PGR complaint court in 2007, but changed level with the judgment of the merits of the accusations in 2012.
But the flags of the attacks also changed. If initially the question that verted the attacks was corruption, it changes and became democracy.
With Bolsonaro’s rise, he chose the battle he began to wage: from the fight against corruption to the defense of democracy. This is not just about this: the dismantling of the operation that became a symbol of the fight against corruption was assumed as a battle in itself. It was not stone on stone. And continues, in monocratic decisions, with a judge nullifying everything, with. In a context where, according to, 58% of respondents pointed to corruption as the country’s biggest problem, surpassing topics such as crime and drug trafficking.
The STF opponents are now others: diatribes against the institution originated in the PT and its supporters. “The STF is not the power of the Republic. Our Constitution has established three powers, but there are only two: the elected, who have popular sovereignty, the legislature and the executive. [apenas] an organ “.
Its conclusion was that “it should take all the powers of the Supreme” and to convert it into a constitutional cut. Under Bolsonaro onwards, attacks on the ‘non -elected judges’ of the STF depart from the presidential circle. They started before the election campaign, with the infamous reference to a soldier and a cable to intervene in the court.
According to democratic theory, the alternation between rival political forces generates incentives for collective learning. The perspective of mitigation mitigation hegemonic pretensions of groups that come to see less as enemies and more as rivals. This veil of ignorance would lead citizens to examine institutions as losers, leading them to evaluate them as rules of the game and as public goods. Realpolitik, however, suggests that the preconditions for this to happen are rare.
At the moment, what we observed in Brazil and are hegemonic pretensions of rulers who seek to unilaterally shape institutions to their interests. On the left, the most blatant case is that of Mexico de Cláudia Sheinbaum, which followed the threats of collective dismissal of magistrates of the superior courts of their predecessor and patron, obvious. As if to illustrate the communalities between left and right liberal majority, the example was followed this week by Daniel Noboa, president of Ecuador, who, from megaphone in hand, led a march for a popular consultation asking, in other measures, the court’s collective impediment
of that country.
What is unique in the Brazilian case is that the attack on the court does not depart from the holder of the Executive Power to whom the Supreme Court went from usurper to the defender of rights. The opponent is now a foreign government.
Gift Link: Did you like this text? Subscriber can release seven free hits from any link per day. Just click on F Blue below.
