Impeachment: What weighs more, proof of a crime or the desire to punish those potentially guilty?

During the months leading up to President Dilma's downfall, several parliamentarians suggested causes and methods for conducting the impeachment process. Apparently, the concept that it was a "legal-political" device stuck.

One of those who suggested this definition was Minister José Serra, embroiled up to his neck in R$ 23 million in undeclared funds in Switzerland. A great guy to set parameters, isn't he? But when it came down to it, the legal issue was weak, too debatable, and what was seen in the Senate sessions made it clear that "decrees and fiscal maneuvers" were excuses; political motivation compensated for the lack of evidence.

At the time, there was "applause" from the mainstream media, which praised Brazilian institutions for their handling of the process. Temer himself congratulated the Supreme Court and the other courts that judged the irregularities committed by the Workers' Party government, even though such crimes were entirely debatable.

The new crisis exposes yet another characteristic of the illegitimate government. Beyond the usual truculence of those who don't know how to deal with the demands and criticisms of society, and the imposition of totally questionable measures, denying debate, the exchange of favors that ignores laws and overrides jurisdictions is its new hallmark.

This time we have everything for a real impeachment, but the question remains: will we have the political motivation for it? The legal evidence is appearing faster and faster, showing the president's direct involvement in ensuring the violation of Iphan's regulations, in the Geddel case.

What may seem insignificant is symbolically significant. A direct action by Temer to ignore laws and bodies that protect the cultural heritage of his own country, solely to secure financial investment for a minister, cannot be considered insignificant, nor is it a "magnified" case as Gilmar Mendes suggests.

Now, what will be the political will of those institutions that were praised in the previous process?

Does holding a majority in the House exempt someone from obeying the law? Can they use public resources to their advantage and that of their allies?

If the demand for a more transparent and honest government is being made by the majority of parliament, it's safe to say that we have a gang in power.

Is there a chance of seeing institutions function properly with a legitimate crime on their hands? Will those 367 deputies who voted to open impeachment proceedings against Dilma prove their supposed "thirst for justice and fervent fight against corruption"? Even if they are interested in granting amnesty for undeclared campaign contributions, what puts their principles at risk?

The "Temer Era" was not doomed to failure solely due to a lack of votes; the main reason is the lack of real commitment to Brazil.