The debate on whether or not to mandate ministers at the Federal Court (STF) is legitimate and can take place, but a conclusion needs to be reached if the change will be positive for the highest court in the land and resolve the problems facing it are currently attributed.
This was the conclusion of the second panel of debates of the eighth seminar on Paths against Corruption, organized by the Instituto Não Aceito Corrupção in collaboration with the Estadao. The meeting was moderated by journalist Paula Litaiff, founder of the magazine Cenarium Amazônia. The full text can be seen here.
The topic is back in the news after the president of the Senate, Rodrigo Pacheco (PSD-MG), declared that he intends to reconsider the proposed amendment to the Constitution that creates the mandates next year. The declaration occurred the day after the approval of the PEC, which limited the power of ministers to grant monocratic decisions. The measure provoked a reaction from Supreme Court ministers. Gilmar Mendes said the Court “does not tolerate intimidation.”
Guilherme Casaões, a political scientist at FGV, sees no problem in the discussion, but believes that the company does not yet have enough information to determine whether reducing, for example, the lifetime mandate to a term of 10 years will solve the daily problems of the STF.
“The question that almost never gets asked is: Will it get better?” he asked, adding that he didn’t have an answer to the question. “I think the public position is to advocate for change because you don’t like the Supreme Court or to criticize it because you like it,” she said.
In the same vein, Maria Tereza Sadek, political scientist of the USP and the FGV, recalled that there are different institutional experiences, from Europe, where it is common for the ministers of the Constitutional Court to have a mandate, to the United States, where the position is life and ministers often die while in office.
“Is it reasonable for someone to stay on the Supreme Court for 30 years? That’s a question, I don’t have an answer. Wouldn’t a revamp be more productive? All institutions can be improved,” he declared.
Former Education Minister Renato Janine Ribeiro was more forceful and defended the creation of mandates for the STF, but with some conditions. For him it is necessary to veto the possibility that a single president appoints all the ministers and to stagger the renewal of the STF. “Even reconfirmation should be impossible, because this would place the minister at the mercy of the President of the Republic and the Senate, to whom he would have to be content with being reconfirmed,” Ribeiro said.
Secret budget: consequence of the weakening of the Executive
Another point discussed in the seminar was the secret budget, a practice created during the Bolsonaro government and revealed by Estadaoand its consequences in the fight against corruption. According to experts, the mechanism represents the culmination of a process of weakening the executive power in Brazil and strengthening the legislative power.
In the early 1990s, political scientist Sérgio Abranches coined the term coalition presidentialism to define the Brazilian political system. Even with the concentration of power in the Executive, the President of the Republic was forced to negotiate with political parties to obtain governance in Congress.
According to Casarãos, of the FGV, coalition presidentialism was initially seen as positive because it forced the president to share power with parliamentarians. However, since the Dilma Rousseff government, which has shown no willingness to negotiate with Parliament, this process has deepened.
“Congress at some point understood that faced with the weakness of some presidents who were not willing to negotiate, it could expand its attempts to influence the budget and public policies,” the political scientist said.
The main problem with the secret budget is the lack of transparency. Deputies and senators indicate the resources for their electoral bases, but it is not possible to know exactly who the authors of those indications are. At the end of the Bolsonaro government, the STF banned the mechanism, but Congress, together with the Lula government, created another way for the appointments to continue to take place.
Now parliamentarians influence the allocation of money that is formally in the budget of ministries and public bodies. Recently Lula changed the distribution of resources that were under the control of ministries to form a “box” with funds that could be indicated by deputies and senators during important votes for the government in Congress at the end of the year.
“We have a very powerful legislature due to lack of transparency,” assesses Maria Tereza Sadek. “All this reinforces corruption. We don’t know where these funds go, whether they actually serve public interests or merely local interests to guarantee the survival of some politicians”, added the political scientist, without citing specific cases. In one of the cases revealed by Estadaothe Minister of Communications, Juscelino Filho, used funds from the secret budget to asphalt a dirt road that passes in front of his farm, in Vitorino Freire (MA).
For the former Minister of Education, Renato Janine Ribeiro, the Brazilian system forces presidents to behave like “acrobats” and to be responsible for giving rationality to the political system. “The Legislature and the Judiciary do what they want. With their strengthening over the last 10 years, the situation has become almost unmanageable,” he said.
Source: Terra
Rose James is a Gossipify movie and series reviewer known for her in-depth analysis and unique perspective on the latest releases. With a background in film studies, she provides engaging and informative reviews, and keeps readers up to date with industry trends and emerging talents.
