On the eve of the vote that buried the proposal for a print vote, the President of the House said that powers should dance “without stepping on anyone’s feet.” “This is a good dance, this is life,” said Arthur Lyra, overly optimistic about the harmony between Congress and the Planalto Palace.
Jair Bolsonaro has already donned half the shin boots of the Republic, but is still invited to the Brasilia drag games. Since the beginning of this term, the political world has been selling the version that it is possible to convince the president to act within the framework of minimum democratic rules. However, he himself insists on proving that there is no chance of this.
The House’s decision to present a printed vote to the plenary is a complete example of this farce. The MPs said that the discussion could have ended by categorically rejecting the proposal. He even extended a promise that Bolsonaro would respect the results of the vote if the text was rejected. But the performance only served the president.
Bolsonaro manipulated the number of votes to declare his victory. He said the support of 229 MPs was proof of suspicion about the elections and raised new suspicions of e-voting machine fraud, even admitting that he had no evidence. The House gave Planalto a gift – and even pretended to be a gesture of firmness.
This is not naivety, but interest. The parliamentarians already know that the president is not going to do otherwise and that his only goal is unrest. However, these politicians prefer to pretend that the steps are not causing harm and keep the troublemaker in the hall. They were already used to using their power with Bolsonaro in the room.
Congress should pay more attention to the signals coming from the president himself. Every time he is given the opportunity to participate in a political game, Bolsonaro demonstrates that he does not want to follow any rules. It will not change until 2022.
THERE IS A LINK: Did you like this text? A subscriber can issue five free clicks to any link per day. Just click on the blue F.
Serial advertising in support of the re-election of an MP Arthur Lyra (PP/AL) for the presidency of the Chamber show that Lula failed to achieve its first strategic goal after winning the election: have enough political support in the National Congress to regain executive powers.
Before the first round result, center party sources warned that Lula would try to use positions in the federal government to create a base that would allow him to influence elections to the House and get a more recovery-oriented leadership. protagonist Planalto. The victory of the Conservative parties sparked a yellow light, but their conquest on October 30 opened the door to a new window of negotiations with leaders who resisted declaring themselves in opposition.
However, without resorting to any political approach, the transition group, instead of seducing the allies, began its work by presenting the idea PEC asks for a lot of money, initiating negotiations he could not afford. The first person to notice the mistake was the senator. Renan Calleiros (MDB/AL), who classified this movement as shaving.
Looking back, the analysis is simple. Lula asked Congress for a fat check and even some of his newly won prerogatives. It gave rise to hopes among deputies and senators for places in the federal administration and … disappeared. His absence for two weeks (one for the international agenda and another for sick leave) without delegating political composition powers only served to discredit the vice president-elect. Geraldo Alkmin and make it clear that PT will play a central role in the most strategic areas of public policy.deconstructing the post-election wishful thinking, thinking that there will be a coalition government with a slight left bias.
In addition, aggressive statements against the market contributed to the revival. negative memories of past PT experiences about how to manage the household, calling the technical leadership of the party in a personal conversation, which “It’s okay that Lula wanted to redeem his background in this government, but he also wanted to redeem the government. Dilma (Roussef) it was too much!”🇧🇷 Business circles and market representatives, who are part of the network of communicating vessels connecting deputies and senators, tried to sound the alarm, it could not be otherwise.
The fact is that the new government, wanting to actually exercise power without sitting down in a chair, got into a complex labyrinth. In order to approve the PEC, will it have to make concessions in order to accommodate non-aligned parties in the formation of a new government? Can Lula carve out seats in government that serve only her friends during the first and second hours, and even then get the budgetary and enforcement resources he asks for? At least one thing is certain. Lula will create his own ministry, which will have to solve more conflicts than he would like. and is seriously at risk of starting his term having already lost his first legislative battle.
The fact is that while Lula was on the road or defended himself, the centrist parties did not seek or receive proposals for effective participation in the next government. So, Lyra had an open path to secure his re-election more easily than one could imagine, so much so that Lula’s possible support for his name or not today, in terms of results, does not matter much.
And the scenario could get even worse for Planalto. If Lira implements the idea of a bloc with the main parties in the center, the PT will not chair any of the most important parliamentary committees in the House.
And, understanding the difficulty of approving PECs, PT MPs will defend behind the scenes the use of STFs to obtain over-the-ceiling resources to pay Bolsa Surname🇧🇷 Given the circumstances of the hostility between the political world and the judiciary, one can think of a more difficult inauguration of the government than one that, after losing the political battle, resorts to the STF in order to be able to count on the resources denied by the deputies. and senators?
Thus, advertising supporting the lira shows that Lula was unable to consolidate his position in the Legislative Assembly and even lost his positions.🇧🇷 This raises the question of how the future government will organize its base, based on such an unfavorable point (there are only 133 deputies in the left coalition).
There are two scenarios.
In the first, Lula decides to rule with a minority and begins to debate agenda after agenda, trying to attract detractors by practicing big retail in Congress and keeping her legislative agenda to the minimum possible. The other is to recognize an equal in the lyre, Just like Jair Bolsonaro did.by inviting him to take a leading role in the government’s agenda and participate (or his closest group) in the development of major decisions, continuing the semi-presidency that actually exists in Brazil today.
There is Ludwig Wittgenstein: language is not only used to describe reality, we also use it to ask for favors, to give thanks, to curse, to greet, to pray…
And it is necessary to take into account the context, the situation, the use. “It’s raining” can state the fact that it’s really raining. But suppose that the mother in the morning, when the son is getting ready for school, says to him: “It is raining”, he at the same time knows that he must take an umbrella. If in a peasant family, after a long drought, as now, the wife opens the window and says to her husband: “It is raining,” then this speaks of contentment. But if you were expecting a pleasant walk and you say, “It’s raining,” you’re in for a disappointment. Language performs three main functions: expressive, appellative and representative. These functions are related to the relationship established between sender, receiver and objects: there is someone (the sender) who addresses someone (the receiver) to tell him something, making reality real.
There is also a phatic function, the task of which is only to maintain communication: “yes, yes …”, “yes …”, “of course …”. When someone talks too much, they try to say that they are still listening. God knows!…
In another sense, the pragmatic dimension of language is essential. According to some philosophers, one should strive for an artificial, logically unambiguous language, interested only in syntactic (relationships between signs) and semantic (relationships between signs and reality) dimensions of language and the verification principle of statements. But thus the pragmatic dimension was forgotten: by speaking, an effect is produced. Think, for example, of the promise of marriage: “I promise and swear to love you and be faithful to you all our lives” has an effect that is marriage itself. This dimension was emphasized in the Bible: God was created by the word, the efficacious word. “Let there be light,” and there was light.
Language can attract crowds, lead them to revolution, calm them down, elevate them, turn them in one direction or another.
The word heals. One day a man came to me with huge problems and simply asked me to listen to him without interrupting. He talked for more than an hour and a half and, at the end, thanked me very much, because he could not imagine how much I helped him, which he will never forget. With a few words, we can discover the future of man. With a few words, we can destroy it forever: “You are an ass, you will never do anything in life!”
Through the word we open ourselves to the world, and the world opens up to us. Speaking, we argue this or that, argue, commit, form a community. Because the human mind is linguistized, we can only understand ourselves in the body, with others, and in history. man because he Zoon Hangong Echonan animal that has a tongue on politicssocial, political animal, in contrast to the herd animal, and the reason for this is the word, as Aristotle saw in Politics: “The reason why man is more of a social being than any bee or any other herd animal is clear. Only man among animals has a word. And he continues: “The voice is an indication of suffering and pleasure; therefore, other animals also have it. On the contrary, the word exists to express what is convenient and what is inconvenient, as well as what is right and what is unjust. , And this is a characteristic of people compared to other animals: to have an exceptional sense of good and evil, justice and injustice and other assessments. Public participation in this establishes a family home and a city. “And this is through dialogue (dia input) that conflicts must be resolved.
Human language cannot be reduced to the emotional language of pleasure and displeasure. He is able to make moral judgments, distinguish between good and evil, fair and unfair, sharing and publicly challenging these assessments. Thus, as Gabriel Amengual summarized, “through this dual function, language founds ethics and ethically founds the polis.”
How we need to return to the classics! To put an end to lies and go beyond sophistry…
We are all political animals and, therefore, we are responsible for maintaining the policy. I agree with Pope Francis in his remark that although it applies only to Christians, the warning is for everyone: “Participation in politics is a Christian’s duty. As Christians, we cannot wash our hands like Pilate did. We must intervene in politics, because politics is one of the highest forms of charity, since it seeks the common good. The laity must work in politics. Politics is very dirty, but I ask: “Why is it dirty?” Why didn’t Christians get me in the gospel spirit? This is the question I ask myself. It’s easy to say that the blame lies with others… But what should I do? This is a debt! To work for the common good is the duty of a Christian.”
I have written here many times that I consider politics a noble occupation, one of the noblest. When this happens as part of the work for the common good, putting the common interest above their own and party interests. But, since politics is such a difficult and demanding mission, when I watch so many people rush for political office, I must sincerely confess that I do not believe that the majority do it out of love for the public cause. , in the service of the common good. What interests, what benefits, what complicity, what incompetence, what privileges, what cronies, what rewards, what benefits, what vanity drives them?