In film Perfume for women (1992), Lt. Col. Frank Slade (Al Pacino, in an Oscar-winning play), despite losing his eyesight, dances an unforgettable tango and finds his best moment during a debate at a prestigious American leadership school: “Beware of the kind of leaders they produce here.” , – he warns in C major.…

Slade’s warning does not make sense in an electoral system in which subtitle voting forces parties to call famous people (vote collectors) to elect representatives who, with a lackluster vote, gain parliamentary seats. Some parties describe themselves as personal and inorganic fiefdoms. In this scenario, the so-called third path to the 2022 elections is spoken of as shortening the path around the polarized circuit.

After re-democratization, we only had a third successful path in the 1990 elections. Faced with three center-left or left-wing candidates, there was a rehearsal for Silvio Santos and the nomination of Fernando Collor, who would be elected and go through an impeachment process.

Interestingly, before the second round of the same elections, the third option was again considered, when Leonel Brizola (3rd place) invited Luis Inacio Lula da Silva (2nd) to resign in order to put Mario Covas (4th place) in dispute with Collor.

The second round is causing serious problems in the Brazilian elections. The couple who arrive there are forced to form alliances, demanding overstated commitments that will cost the nation dearly in the future. People are constantly bewildered by unexpected ingredients in a (mixed) salad.

The futility of the second round

Conceived as a safety valve of sorts (and to overcome the mistaken majority problem), the second round is a waste of time and community resources. Since its inception, no candidate has changed the outcome of the first round, and if it had existed before, it would have been equally useless: either one imagines that in the democratic period from 1945 to 1963, the victory of Dutra (supported by Vargas) Will Vargas, Jusselino and Yanio swap places? In addition, the drain enhances the polarization.

interview in aprilone, former President Fernando Henrique said he misses the days when sociologists thought about Brazil in general. Perhaps they have lost their place for economists, for which the media are in great demand. The result was not good and the FHC memory seems to fit.

Read the other chronicles of Carlos Augusto Junqueira de Siqueira here

He also spoke out against the institution of re-election. It seems that he is right: the opportunity to remain in office encourages the replacement of government programs with election plans. On the other hand, the fragmentation of parties gives rise to the so-called coalition presidential approach, which distorts the political system.

Reforms

We have already lost track of government pension reforms that weathered the pandemic. We also had a labor reform, and now we see tax and administrative reforms being discussed.

The third path in Brazil is political reform. But this one, year after year, next year. Historically, this change occurred only at break points (1822, 1889, 1930, 1945, 1964 and 1985). Otherwise, the intervention was single or individual.

In this sense, looking at the reforms as a whole, it is necessary to carefully examine the experience gained at the present time in Chile. Obviously, the advance committee was left behind, and the neighboring country slowed down an unstable model.

Read it too

Simplification of small companies

Regulatory perspectives on environmental risk management

Brazil Loses Opportunity Without Regulated Carbon Market