The end of fiction
It is this monopoly of the Executive branch that is misguided and condemns the Legislative branch to a permanent state of minority.
The processing of the Mandatory Budget Amendment has now become a priority for the National Congress. However, the reason for the debates does not seem to reflect the importance of the proposed constitutional amendment.
Judging by media perception, this is a move led by members of Congress to ensure the release of parliamentary amendments. It would be a clever tactic for Congress to avoid budget cuts, which are necessary to control spending.
This urgently needed initiative should not be viewed solely from the perspective of parliamentary amendments. That would be like focusing on the tree and not the forest!
Amendments are legitimate, but in this case, the issue is one of principle: the entire budget must be mandatory. This is a basic condition of the democratic process and a guarantee of legitimacy and republicanism in the use of public resources. The Executive branch must propose priorities and policies, but these only become legitimate when approved by the people, represented in the Legislative branch.
In Brazil, paradoxically, a fictitious budget is accepted as if it were normal. We are facing a denial of democracy, which presupposes shared responsibility in the management of public money.
This situation, incidentally, generates the vicious cycle of parliamentary amendments, fueling a quid pro quo depending on the circumstances. The clientelistic use of the amendment has ended up distorting its true purpose.
Congress is unable to set priorities because the government spends as it pleases, however it pleases. It grants tax exemptions as it sees fit, depressing the revenues of states and municipalities.
Mayors, powerless, without influence, and seeing the resources of constitutional funds shrinking, have only one alternative: to pressure parliamentarians to obtain the release of amendments, that portion of the budget over which Congress still has some direct control.
The parliamentary amendment, however, has become the escape valve for a sick federalism, an instrument of non-republican negotiations and disrespect for the opposition. It should have already been replaced by consistent investment programs, included in the Budget.
It is of little use to repeat the mantra that the fictional budget is a fundamental instrument for the government to ensure fiscal responsibility and maintain control of economic policy. It is this monopoly of the Executive branch that is misguided and condemns the Legislative branch to a permanent state of minority.
If the budget is a fiction, why would parliamentarians invest time and effort in discussing programs and priorities? Under the current conditions, everyone knows that, with the very first contingency decree, the Executive will decide what will and will not be done, nullifying the legislative effort!
Similarly, how could Congress assume more direct responsibility for the conditions of fiscal responsibility, for the balance between current spending and investments, if its decisions will soon be rendered meaningless by a fictitious budget?
The underdeveloped state of the Legislative Branch hinders its own institutional development, the strengthening of its technical advisory services, and the professionalization of its offices. Ultimately, no decision is truly effective, and the only concrete work is drafting a budget law that doesn't last more than a few months.
Let's not be under any illusions. Just as the protesters didn't take to the streets for R$ 0,20, Congress isn't acting solely because of parliamentary amendments. What it truly wants is to reclaim powers and responsibilities that should always have been its own.