Assessment of the Constitution

Upon completing its twenty-third year in force, the Brazilian Constitution deserves to be analyzed from the perspective of a balance sheet, in order to extract the advantages and disadvantages of the political charter that inserted Brazil into modernity and freed it from the dark times of authoritarianism.

First and foremost, in every civilized nation, the Constitution is an unalterable and enduring clause, with a permanence that ensures peace and the full exercise of individual rights and guarantees.

Secondly, the constitutional focus refers to the model of government and the equality between the branches of power, in order to allow for balance and normality in the performance of all governance.

Finally, it is worth remembering that we had around 70 amendments and thousands of provisional measures, which represent an emptying of Parliament.

Born to prevail, the citizen's Constitution played its role, but, among the pros and cons, we have a very large erosion of the size of the State and the expenses that compromise the health of the treasury.

Literally, our Constitution deserves a mini-reform to be more concise and focus exclusively on issues of this nature, without going into details or worrying about minutiae.

Thus, the system is flawed because it grants programmatic rights to minors and the elderly, but in practice, little or nothing changes.

Based on this premise, and in favor of a new system, the Political Charter creates a clash of interests and did not go deep enough to reverse the imbalances between the tax aspect and the fiscal war.

It is quite important to reduce the size of the state and review federalism, because expenses are not matched by revenue, and we lack the structure, much less the economic activity, capable of generating a corresponding budget.

When it was drafted and put into effect more than two decades ago, the Constitution embodied a hope for harmony and a better exercise of democracy.

While freedom of the press and freedom of expression function relatively well, the changes have not been rapid or even minimally consistent with population growth.

Social programs are vital, but they lose their meaning when the state fails to ensure that citizens receive a natural and dignified income.

The current situation calls for a mini-reform in all aspects and for a reduction in the size of the federation, especially to decrease the public deficit.

At best, in terms of security, freedom, health, transportation, and education, the Constitution has failed to secure its foundation, and without private initiative and citizen funding, we cannot remain at the mercy of a wasteful and poor service-providing state.

By all indications, the Constitution, in its pluralistic approach, achieved freedom in both economic and individual terms, and that is significant.

However, to combat the global crisis and internal problems, it seems best to relaunch the premise of a Political Charter compatible with its time.

The crisis between parties, of a fiscal and tax nature, concerning the sharing of royalties, and the scarcity of natural resources, all of this calls into question the role of the branches of government and institutional collapse.

It's clear that we have a long way to go, but the Constitution, which is 23 years old, is youthful and extremely revolutionary, opening up space and shaping new generations.

We emerged from a dark period in history, marked by the absence of freedom, and redirected our dreams and hopes towards the Political Charter, a bit ideological, because between the programmatic and the practical, the final balance is still positive, but it is beginning to show signs of aging and fatigue, due to the cost of maintaining the current constitutional system.

A minor reform to streamline the constitution and give flexibility to its structure seems urgent, and this is something society must fight for and achieve, putting the political class in its proper place and imposing a more technical sense of responsibility on the government.