Last week, the Senate rejected the president’s bid for a vacancy on the Supreme Court; the following day, Congress overturned Planalto’s vetoes to the PL. These two facts, added to the erosion of the court’s prestige and the pre-election tension, fueled the perennial debate about the Republic’s institutions and the need to reform them.
So far the demonstrations have produced more fire than light. A respected analyst stated that presidentialism was replaced by the dictatorship of Congress; another, of equal caliber, considers that we live under “congressional presidentialism”. On Tuesday (5), minister Gilmar Mendes, from , defended a broad change in the political system and a pact for state reform.
Strictly speaking, it is important to separate what results from the institutional design of the Republic from what is caused by the preferences and strategies of political agents. I remember here the column by colleague Lara Mesquita, published in this Folha on Monday (4).
Brazilian presidentialism is inevitably multiparty, due to the proportional electoral system and the federative organization of the State; both multiply the parties represented in Congress. Even though it has been reducing, its number remains very high. Given that no group can achieve a majority in the Legislature, governing requires coalitions, in which the president’s party is one of the participants — not always the largest, however. This is one of the effects of institutional design.
Although it is advantageous to govern with politically more homogeneous coalitions; When this does not occur, the ruler is required to have greater ability to negotiate and give in. Governments headed by the PT have always had to be based on coalitions with right-wing parties, as the left never ceased to be a minority in both legislative houses. This is not due to the institutional design, but to the voters’ choices: even when voting for a left-wing president, they repeatedly prefer senators and deputies from the varied right-wing camp.
Thus, the “Congress that is the enemy of the people”, as boasted in the propaganda that has been flooding left-wing networks, is the result of the choice of the same voters who brought to Planalto a president who is a friend of the people — in fact, president and senators elected according to the same majority rule.
It is true that recent institutional changes have reduced, but not eliminated, the means available to the Executive to obtain parliamentary support for its initiatives. Managing the coalition became more difficult; What hasn’t changed is our presidential system. It is worth remembering that the political disconnect between President Lula and that right-wing group in his coalition did not prevent him from obtaining important legislative triumphs in his third term: the fiscal framework; tax reform; the change in Income Tax; the Nest Egg; and the anti-faction law.
What we saw last week was less a manifestation of a crisis in multiparty presidentialism than the result of a presidential strategy that misjudged the forces at its disposal and a sign that the pragmatic right is disembarking from the government to join the pirate ship of Bolsonarism.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
