Now, only a Constituent Assembly

From the new PSD, surprisingly, comes the proposal to convene a constituent assembly exclusively to vote on a new federal pact and political, tax, administrative, labor, and social security reforms. In Latin America, the defense of a constituent assembly is associated with the left, more specifically with the president of Venezuela, Hugo Chávez, who used it to defeat the right and strengthen his power. Liberals and the right in Brazil react when this is mentioned as if it were the prelude to a left-wing dictatorship.

But the PSD is neither left-wing nor right-wing, as Mayor Gilberto Kassab is keen to emphasize – and therefore the proposal takes on a different connotation. Furthermore, the fact that it was detailed by Senator Kátia Abreu, president of the National Confederation of Agriculture and leader of agribusiness in Congress, raises suspicions from the other side: a center-right maneuver to change the Constitution according to their wishes.

The constituent assembly proposed by the PSD would be elected using closed lists submitted by the parties, with half of the members of Congress (297). This raises a fundamental question: if a constituent assembly is necessary because the National Congress makes no decisions, what would be the point of having a mini-congress with representatives appointed by the parties?

In any case, whatever the intention, it is an important and timely discussion, given the situation the country is experiencing: nothing changes because politicians and judges don't want it to change. There are plenty of examples and demonstrations of this.

Five years ago, in 2006, I wrote an article on this topic for Correio Braziliense. I reread it and realized it's still very relevant today. In it, I advocate for the convening of an exclusive constituent assembly, but with the possibility of electing people not affiliated with political parties and, preferably, who commit to not running in subsequent elections.

At the time, I thought the situation was critical. But today it's much worse.

The 2006 article:

"Off-the-books campaign financing, monthly payments and smaller monthly payments, vote buying in legislative bodies, political appointments to serve private and partisan interests. Everyone who follows Brazilian politics knows that these practices are not new and have existed for many years. Everyone also knows that they are not the privilege of one party or another; they are widespread. And they are not only federal, but also state and municipal."

Those who closely follow Brazilian politics find it amusing to see some politicians, untouched by the most recent accusations and denunciations, posing as paragons of honesty. They even participate in public demonstrations against corruption, give television interviews... as if they had never resorted to undeclared campaign contributions. At the very least.

These obvious findings in no way diminish the responsibility of those involved in the corruption allegations. The expectation was that everything would be investigated and the guilty punished. But that is not what will happen. Not everything will be investigated, nor will all the guilty be punished, as is already evident. Only some things will be investigated, only some will be punished.

Therefore, the most important thing is that this crisis contributes to society reflecting on how to drastically reduce – since eliminating them is impossible – the possibilities of maintaining corruption schemes, whether or not they are caused by political-electoral disputes. This reflection has been happening, and there are many expressions of opinion, from individuals and institutions, in this regard.

But this reflection must be followed by concrete actions. This means making profound changes: to the Constitution, to legislation, to norms, and to behaviors. Without broadening the scope of these changes and without deepening them, we will get through this moment of tension and, in time, everything will return to how it was before.

It is not enough, therefore, to make some cosmetic changes, slight reforms. It is necessary to change the electoral system, the legislation on political parties, the rules for filling public positions, the functioning of the National Congress and the Judiciary, federal relations, criminal laws, the tax system (what is tax evasion if not a form of corruption?). To change whatever needs changing so that the country can renew itself.

The objective conditions for doing this exist: never have political and governmental institutions been so discredited. Never have parliamentarians and politicians been so attacked and viewed with such skepticism. Such moments encourage situations of chaos, coups d'état, revolts, and revolutions. It is no coincidence that slogans calling for null votes have emerged. The "que se vayan todos!" of our Hispanic neighbors finds its Brazilian version in "fora todos!"

However, the conditions in the country are not conducive to coups or revolutions, and simply rejecting politics and politicians will lead nowhere if it is not accompanied by a real alternative to change the situation.

The solution must be institutional, but the National Congress is incapable of discussing, much less implementing, these changes, as it has demonstrated. Current congressmen, despite the general consensus, lack the legitimacy, credibility, and respectability to do so.

In popular perception, the majority of Congress does not act in the public interest. There are countless examples to show that a large portion of our congressmen defend their own interests and those of the businesses they represent, the economic groups that sponsor their elections.

If it depends on Congress, nothing changes. Therefore, the changes that need to be made will only have legitimacy if discussed and approved by a Constituent Assembly. And obviously, this constituent assembly cannot be, like the one in 1987-88, composed of deputies and senators who vote looking at their chances of reelection and their own political future, and not thinking about the interests of the country.

The moment calls for a sovereign and exclusive Constituent Assembly, composed of representatives elected by the population independently of political parties, that is, without the need for party affiliation. Ideally, those elected to this Constituent Assembly would have to commit to not running for elected office for a considerable period.

There are, of course, many problems in making this Constituent Assembly a reality. The main one is the convocation, since the majority of the National Congress, now or in 2007, will not be sympathetic to this idea. But if there is political will from the current or future federal government, and a strong demand from society, it will be more difficult for congressmen to reject the convocation. Afterwards, the other problems will be solved. The political and operational difficulties cannot be a pretext for abandoning the solution.

A sovereign and exclusive Constituent Assembly, truly in tune with the population and the diversity of legitimate societal interests, can accomplish great work in a very short time. And thus, this crisis will have generated a great opportunity for Brazil.”