Impeachment for show only.

Upon learning that a British citizen had chosen Brasília for their vacation this year, a resident of Brasília became curious and wanted to know why.

"It's just that I was told that in Brasília there's an impeachment process that's just for show," the tourist replied.

The irresistible attraction to copying everything that comes from abroad, especially from a country with history, fame, and tradition, led Brazilians to include the institution of impeachment in the Brazilian constitution in 1824. And there it remained, from constitution to constitution, as if it were an entrenched clause.

With that name, in English.

However, not everything that works well in one country works well in another. For a simple reason: no two peoples are alike.

Two recent examples confirm this assertion.

Shortly after the British people expressed their support for the United Kingdom leaving the European Community, the English Prime Minister, who had been in favor of remaining, had no doubt. He set up a podium in front of his house – which is nothing like the palaces in Brasília – and announced his resignation.

Does anyone believe similar behavior would occur if the same thing happened in Brazil?

If this were happening here, the Brazilian David Cameron would, first of all, distrust the numbers, request a recount, and find a way to stay in power.

Another example occurred today. The English national team lost a Euro Cup qualifying match to an amateur team from Iceland. At the end of the match, the English coach used the microphone to announce that it was time for someone else to take over the team, thanked the players and fans, and said he was leaving. He didn't wait to be fired.

It doesn't even compare to the attitude Dunga took when the Brazilian national team was eliminated from the Copa América.
He complained that the goal against Brazil was scored with the hand, and that he saw no reason to resign from the national team because of that.

Only the following day, upon returning to Brazil, did he receive the blue ticket.

The English and Brazilians adopt very different behaviors, therefore, when it comes to ethical issues.

For impeachment to work in Brazil, it would need to be adapted with some modifications.

Politicians should not be allowed to initiate or carry it forward.

Brazilian politicians are not known for their ethics. They establish and perpetuate them not for reasons of justice, but for partisan interests. They will defend any lie, if it suits their interests, tooth and nail.

If the Speaker of the House is an ally of the government, he won't initiate impeachment proceedings. If he's in opposition to the government, he will. Especially if he's a vindictive blackmailer.

The subsequent stages of the process are also tainted by political bias. The Chamber decides whether or not to proceed not because there are just reasons, but according to political interests. If the government has a majority, the impeachment stops; if it doesn't, the impeachment continues.

This happened in the first stage, in the Brazilian case, and it's happening in the second. There's no concern about proving whether a crime was committed or not. There's no commitment to arriving at the truth. Parties in power vote against impeachment, opposition parties vote in favor. Whatever the truth may be.

This is not a battle for justice, but a battle for votes. For or against.

For impeachment to work in Brazil, it had to be different from the English system.

Since this is a trial for impeachment, it should not be a task for politicians but for judges, from beginning to end. They are the ones who deal with the laws and are qualified to judge.

The Supreme Federal Court should decide whether or not to initiate proceedings if it sees any evidence of a crime, and should proceed using mechanisms that lead to a conclusion based on evidence, not on a fight between majority and minority.
As long as the impeachment process remains unchanged, it will continue to contribute to the political instability to which any president of the Republic who does not have a majority in Congress is subject.

And to plunge the country into a deep recession, immersed in uncertainty about what will happen.

If this impeachment is just for show, it's better to just remove it from the Brazilian constitution altogether.

It won't be missed. There are other ways to remove a president from power when he is conspiring against the interests of the Brazilian people.