World

The Constitution did not provide for a minister like Alexandre de Moraes

Alexandre de Moraes

Alexandre de Moraes will retire in 2043 . Until then, we will have to live with someone who wears the toga eaten by the moths of revolutionary arrogance.

| Photo: Abdias Pinheiro/TSE

As a civil servant who is bored at the end of the day, Minister Alexandre de Moraes, in a monocratic and not very transparent way, determined the blocking of the currency exchange application. Telegram messages throughout the national territory. It was not enough to be an arbitrary decision, the result of an authoritarian mentality, it is still a decision so nebulous that the minister even ordered to investigate the person who leaked details of the order. Thanks to this unsung hero, we learned that the Brazilian Supreme Court makes decisions based on reports in “Fantástico” and that it considers all Telegram users to be potential criminals.

Absurd! Revolting! Even President Jair Bolsonaro, whose hands are tied and will certainly admit the measure until it is naturally revoked (I am optimistic), came out with a joker lament: “inadmissible!”. And, in those times when the citizen feels powerless, because in fact he is powerless, there is not much to do, even beyond shouting his revolt to the clouds – taking advantage, of course, that Alexandre de Moraes has not yet (yet!) type of manifestation.

In view of the repeated affronts of Alexandre de Moraes and your colleagues from the Court to the Constitution, I was wondering how it was possible that we had, in practical terms, a tyrant in a toga with legitimacy to do what they want, when they want, without suffering any kind of consequence for their actions. How could Brazilian society, traumatized by the Military Regime and fearful of seeing a dictator again on the Plateau, build a system capable of putting so much power in the hands of a single man?

I think I have already written in one of my many texts talking about the STF: the men and women who occupy those comfortable armchairs and delight in those delicious lobsters only have their consciences as limiting their legal acts. There is, therefore, no type of effective institutional opposition to STF ministers, since the Senate is silent and the only impeachment request filed by President Jair Bolsonaro was considered “undemocratic” by those who claim the monopoly of democratic virtue for themselves. .

For all intents and purposes, and as much revolt as this arouses in me and you, the arbitrariness committed by Alexandre de Moraes & Cia. have the silent blessing of our Constitution. After all, Alexandre de Moraes’ legitimacy lies in the fact that he was nominated by Michel Temer and submitted to a hearing in the Senate, who came to the fateful conclusion that he had notorious legal knowledge and, until then, unblemished conduct to occupy the position. . For the constituent, this was enough for us to give one person the power of final decision even on the price of fuel. The character, eventual authoritarian delusions and submission to the judicial activism of this and other ministers were never at stake.

Credibility and Respectability

The Brazil of 960, when the Constituent Assembly was formed, was very more innocent. Much simpler. We had, on the right and on the left, leaders who, although they often defended repugnant ideas, were undeniably imbued with the ethereal “public spirit”. It was a time when the word “politics” had another connotation. If there were delusions of control, and there certainly were, they were drowned out by the sound of seductive words and expressions like “democracy”, “freedom” and “rule of law”. It was another spirit, which guided the constituents. If, on the one hand, there was the mistaken notion of a State capable of providing everything for its citizens, on the other hand, the Constitution was written on the assumption that no one else would want to exercise arbitrary power in the country. After all, we were coming out of a dictatorship. And things like the Lulopetista power project were cause for laughter and derision.

) In addition, at that time the top of the Judiciary enjoyed credibility and respectability. No one could imagine that a person would aim to occupy one of those 11 places to make your will or the will of your political group prevail. Jurists were regarded with admiration by society. The inclusion, in the Magna Carta, of instruments that limit the power of STF ministers would be seen as an exaggeration. Perhaps even as paranoia.

Our ultra-comprehensive Constitution lacked, therefore , preview. It was not possible to foresee that one day a president, who knows why, could appoint as a minister of the STF someone willing to distort the “notorious legal knowledge” and corrupt the hitherto unblemished reputation in order to promote a revolutionary agenda. It was not possible to foresee that one day we would have a Supreme Court acting as an opposition party – as a little part of the PT. It was not possible to foresee that the STF would one day give in to the temptation to usurp the power of the Executive and Legislative branches.

The consequence of this is that today Brazil finds itself powerless in the face of the commands and excesses of one or more ministers who have no shame in placing the Internal Regulations of the STF above the Constitution. Who are not ashamed of violating parliamentary immunity to opinion to persecute ideological opponents. Who do not blush when confessing to promote the UN Agenda 2030. Who unbecomingly work to destroy what little we have of a truly democratic culture in this country.

According to the provisions of this Constitution, if nothing is done Alexandre de Moraes will retire only in 2043. Until then, we will have to live with someone who wears the moth-eaten toga of revolutionary arrogance. Powerless, we’ll watch several more episodes like Friday’s (or those leading up to September 7, 2021 ), remember?). Before which we can only obey, although some understandably insist on shouting that it is “absurd!” or “inadmissible”. At this point, the Constitution of 1988 promised us freedom, but bequeathed us slavery.

Back to top button