IF YOU DON'T GET THE dEEP sTATE RIGHT...:

Brazil has continental dimensions, equivalent to those of the United States. This, as we have seen, creates important challenges to a republic. Unfortunately, Brazilian statesmen never dedicated enough thought to these questions.

Although it is also the offspring of western civilization, the Brazilian republic (like other Latin American republics) was not, like the Greek cities, spontaneously established. Neither was it carefully designed by statesmen who had cautiously studied the flaws of republics, and the methods that might improve them.

When the Brazilian monarchy fell to its own weaknesses in 1889, a republic was declared, and the leaders of the new regime grabbed some ideas from the American and French constitutions to write Brazil's own. Unlike America, Brazil was never a federation. As in the old monarchy, the country's provinces were never given the option of joining or leaving the new regime.

Brazil has continental dimensions, equivalent to those of the United States. This, as we have seen, creates important challenges to a republic. Unfortunately, Brazilian statesmen never dedicated enough thought to these questions, either at the launch of the regime, or at any later time across the subsequent 132 years. They should have discussed federalism, checks and balances, and electoral rules. None of these issues received the attention they deserved.

To safeguard the integrity of a republic, there must be proportionality between the population and the number of representatives each state is allotted in the House. In the United States, this principle has consistently been observed. In Brazil, it has always been neglected as a second-tier issue. Even though written rules establish a soft proportionality, the ratios have rarely been enforced throughout the years, and distortions have grown over time. Today, the three most populous states are home to 40% of the country's population, but hold only 32% of the House's seats. The three least populous states have 1% of the population, and 5% of the seats. Also, unreasonably for a geographically large republic, house districts were never created, or even seriously considered, within Brazilian states. Instead, representatives are elected through a complicated statewide proportional partisan scheme. Generally, fewer than 10% of total representatives are selected by the voters they are meant to represent. Following expensive, statewide electoral campaigns, representatives end up financially indebted, and lacking a direct bond to their electors. These conditions make them vulnerable to capture by various interest groups.

In Brazil, high-ranking officials maintain, since colonial times and to this day, the right to be judged by the Supreme Court-the so-called privileged forum. No other modern state retains such a comprehensive mechanism for differentiating the political class from the rest of the population. The origins of this institution can be traced to the "Ordenações Manuelinas," the law code edited by King Manuel I of Portugal in the early 16th century. It encourages patrimonialism and engenders a sense of impunity in politicians. These two features have long been embedded into the social fabric of the country. In recent years, it has become increasingly clear that this system also undermines the separation of branches of government, because it nullifies the constitutionally provisioned limitation of the power of the Supreme Court by the Senate. It is difficult for the Senate to check the courts when so many senators have judicial liabilities. [...]

Brazil, like many of its Latin American peers, has multiple characteristics that leave it highly vulnerable to populist movements: extensive territory, weak rule of law, and resources and economic activity sufficient to sustain a rent-seeking political class. Perhaps most importantly, a large fraction of its population depends on state entitlements for survival.

Tweet   @brothersjudd