The rejection of Ao’s nomination cannot be read just as a defeat for the Executive, nor just as a reaction by the Centrão to Lula’s unilateral choice. Its most relevant aspect is the evidence of a joint. What came to light was an unprecedented dynamic: the Court does not appear only as an instance of external control over the Executive and Legislative branches, but as an actor that interferes in the political process of its own composition.
This point moves the problem beyond the usual literature on judicial independence and separation of powers. In general, interactions between the Executive, Legislative and Judiciary are thought of in terms of checks and balances: Congress controls the Court through hearings, budget and institutional rules; the Court controls the Executive and Legislative branches through judicial review; the Executive influences the Court through appointments. The case suggests something entirely new: the active participation of ministers or “judicial factions” in the dispute over appointments itself, in conjunction with legislative actors. This is a form of horizontal coordination between institutional elites, in which the Court stops being just an arbitrator and starts to directly operate the bargain. The most astonishing thing is that the cleavages associated with the party and government/opposition overlapped.
The second dimension is the bizarre transposition to the Supreme Court of a typical logic of coalition presidentialism. Historically, Brazilian governability was guaranteed through the distribution of ministerial portfolios, positions and budgetary resources. The central variable is coalescence: the correspondence between the parties’ parliamentary weight and their participation in the government. In this plan, the PT was characterized by its monopolistic management of the coalition: even though it is a minority in Congress, it concentrates power.
Messiah’s appointment reproduces this monopolistic logic in the judicial field, with a new criterion, personal loyalty. Lula disregarded prior consultation around Pacheco, to reiterate a pattern of personalist appointments. The problem is that this standard has been adopted at a time of strong decline in the gravitational force of the executive (due to the increasing) and greater autonomy of Congress. The choice, therefore, reveals an inconsistency between the presidential control strategy and the coalition’s coordination requirements.
If the Supreme Court began to integrate the logic of power sharing, this indicates not only the politicization of the Court, but the erosion of boundaries between institutional arenas. Appointments to the court are no longer just a presidential prerogative subject to senatorial control and are now contested as a strategic resource of the coalition. The episode thus illuminates a deeper transformation: Brazilian governance is no longer organized only by the distribution of ministries and budget, but also by the dispute over high-intensity institutional assets — courts, rules, procedures and veto capacity. The consequences of this state of affairs for the rule of law are difficult to overestimate.
LINK PRESENT: Did you like this text? Subscribers can access seven free accesses from any link per day. Just click the blue F below.
