The tenentist movement in robes

Much discernment and responsibility are needed in these times of government crisis. We know how they evolve, but we don't know how they end – most likely to the detriment of the interests of the nation and the Brazilian people.

Words are dangerous, with all due respect to the esteemed Minister Carmem Lúcia, president of the Supreme Federal Court. The country needs justice, and justice needs to be based on the Constitution. Absolutely right. Hence the right to individual guarantees, the right to a legitimate criminal process, and so many other things inherent in a democratic state governed by the rule of law.

There are many legal experts – respectable ones, I believe, in the eyes of the President of the Supreme Federal Court herself – who claim that measures of a state of exception are being insinuated into the rule of law. This is not only a legitimate debate, but one that is entirely acute in the present situation. It needs answers, not harangues from wherever they may come.

Carmen Lúcia warned that every dictatorship "begins by tearing up the Constitution." Absolutely right, too. She was referring to the attempt to "criminalize the actions of Brazilian judges." There is exaggeration and, perhaps, treachery in the statement, in reaction to the treachery of others, quite explicit on the part of politicians who, nevertheless, "are not all the same." The temperature and pressure are high.

Because, on the other hand, there are very strong opinions in the legal world and among lawyers regarding the curtailment of rights in the Lava Jato proceedings, and forces committed to the greater interests of Brazil in the political world, even if with opposing agendas – this is inherent to democracy.

Not only that, but the main point is that the exact opposite seems to be proven in the rhetoric of the agents themselves. The Public Prosecutor's Office and other areas of the Brazilian state's bureaucratic structure have chosen the entire political system as their target, after demonstrating selectiveness in the way they conduct proceedings. They speak politically and judicially outside of court records, as required by the Constitution and the long tradition of Justice.

In other words, why isn't there a fundamental debate about the fact that, to a large extent, the Judiciary has become politicized and "criminalizes the entire political system," to paraphrase the Chief Justice, taking the other side of the coin? That could also be a "tear" in the Constitution, couldn't it?

Moreover, talking about tearing up the Constitution only pushes things further into an impasse. Because the current government agenda – and the Supreme Court is probably aware of this – is precisely the dismantling of the venerable 88 Constitution in its most crucial aspects. Also because the government was brought to power through an impeachment whose results are exacerbating the general crisis the country is experiencing.

Saying that the "norm" was followed in these cases is not enough at this time, because it clearly does not account for the political and institutional crisis between the bureaucratic and political establishments. Establishments are not institutions. It is the institutions that need to be ensured in terms of their integrity. This dies if the actions of those responsible are corporatist and union-like.

What is truly shameful, regardless of its origin, and what leaves the public stunned, is the cynicism of claiming that the crisis stems unilaterally from the "political system" while simultaneously using that system for impeachment.

No one can cast the first stone in this case. As has been said, it's time for more statesmen and less union-based corporatism at the helm of institutions.

Regarding the Constitution, the Supreme Court, and Congress, one might think that nothing is more dangerous to democracy than the mythologized attempt at final redemption, at "completely cleaning up" the political system. We know what that has historically led to.

There is a movement that can be called "tenentismo" – born in another moment of serious national discord in the 1920s – a "tenentismo" in robes. It suggests exactly that, with the fervor of the obsessed and feeling strong enough to do so, which is even worse, because they overstep their institutional and constitutional role.

The function and scope of the Justice system and the bureaucratic apparatus of the State – Federal Police, Public Prosecutor's Office, Judiciary – are well defined and cannot and should not be overstepped. Likewise, the function of making laws belongs to Congress, and this too is respecting the Constitution.

Returning to the President of the Supreme Federal Court: "Democracy depends on strong and independent powers." Not only that: interdependent, convergent! "A judge without independence is not a judge." A parliamentarian elected by the people without independence is not a representative parliamentarian!

The key is to respect each other, respect each other's boundaries, and understand each other. Anything outside of that is rebellion, no matter where it comes from.

In this march of folly, the voice of reason will prevail, the serene voice defending a way out of the crisis and the understanding that only within democracy, within the framework of the established political system and existing institutions, can solutions be found. Institutions that not only respect each other in constitutional terms, but that come together and build balanced responses to the situation.