The presidential system, through a mechanism of checks and balances, grants excessive powers to minorities. This means that the National Congress is unable to approve measures of public interest and analyze long-term reforms. The National Constituent Assembly was a milestone in the process of restoring democracy in the country, as it guaranteed citizens broad civil, social and political rights. However, the reforms did not guarantee governments high levels of responsibility and representation.
Building a strong, advanced democratic country is not easy. Ironically, exaggerated efforts to increase voter participation in government decisions reduce the accountability and legitimacy of those in power. The vast majority of voters are unprepared, and even less focused, to make complex public interest decisions. When asked to speak out, they defer to popular leaders and pressure groups who organize to serve their own interests.
There is not necessarily a direct relationship between state strengthening and the development of democracy. The larger issue is maintaining the balance between state power, the rule of law and representative democracy. The Founding Fathers created an anti-majoritarian system of government that, by favoring minorities, gives them veto power over actions that conflict with their interests—in effect, in Francis Fukuyama’s words, a veto power.
In a parliamentary system, the prime minister acts on behalf of the people, but is accountable to Congress. In this case, the moderate force is the head of state, or the people, under the circumstances. In the presidential system, the head of state and the head of government are concentrated in the same personality. The executive authority operates and is directly accountable to the people. In this system, the judiciary ends up forcibly becoming a “moderating force”!
Moreover, our judiciary, which faces an overarching, detailed, and protectionist constitution, along with its veneration of mere procedural compliance with standards, is also a source of weakening of democracy. Interpreters of the Great Law have to pay more attention to the consequences of their decisions, because they ultimately also affect economic growth and the well-being of citizens.
The means to achieve prosperity do not dispense with the intervention of political parties. These, the true representatives of the public interest, will be responsible for educating themselves, deliberating about programs and alternatives, and then developing their action plans. In possession of the roadmap, both parties will be in a position to take it to plenary to discuss, support and, ultimately, integrate it into their government’s programme.
Today, the executive branch is merely the administrator of what Congress decides, which the court ultimately interprets. Therefore, there is a need to strengthen state authority. In order to abandon the plebiscite choice of governments, it is necessary to abandon presidentialism and bring together the vast number of parties, each of which feels compelled, ready, and willing to deal with issues of public concern.
Agreement to reform the political representation process must come from leaders in Congress, with the executive branch at the helm and supported by the judiciary. The parliamentary system is less dependent on interest groups and less vulnerable to legal disputes. By reconciling executive power with parliamentary representation, it has a unique and distinctive style of decision-making. When there is an impasse, an irreparable blockage, the government dissolves parliament and calls new elections, which means giving the final say to voters.
Trends/Discussions
Articles published with a byline do not reflect the opinion of the newspaper. Its publication aims to stimulate debate on Brazilian and global problems and reflects different trends in contemporary thought.
About The Author
