Petistas [members of the Brazilian Workers’ Party or PT] in Brazil and Democrats in the U.S. tend to embarrass elected presidents in the courts and in Congress.
Two of the world’s largest democracies – Brazil and the United States – will make choices at the ballot box only 10 days apart, which will leave thorny issues as an inheritance to those who have adhered to a trendy doctrine. Politicians should not go to the extremes of what rules allow in the struggle for power, according to this doctrine; otherwise, the liberal regime itself might be put at risk.
Delegitimizing the opponent’s victory, such as contesting it in court, would not be advisable. To seek the impeachment of a president elected by the people would not be acceptable either.
These tactics, although legal, would help erode the coexistence pact between opposing forces and turn the dispute into a free-for-all to crush the opposition.
The tables have turned. Judging by the odds, the Democrats will take the majority of seats over the Republicans in the House of Representatives and might start Trump’s impeachment proceedings. The Brazilian Workers’ Party seeks to contest in court the legitimacy of Jair Bolsonaro’s probable victory based on the WhatsApp scandal publicized by the Brazilian newspaper Folha de São Paulo.
What will aesthetes say about good manners in the new configuration – that Democrats should refuse to embarrass Trump? That Petistas [members of the Workers’ Party] need to put their heads down and peacefully accept Bolsonaro’s victory?
I doubt they will say that, just as I doubt they will recognize the basic error in their reasoning. It resides in the normative field of what we would like it to be and not in the positive field of what, unfortunately, it is.
It is not only expected that the Democrats and the PT will use their prerogatives to the full extent of the law in the dispute for power in a highly competitive partisan environment; it helps control the lust of powerful agents who should not play loosely.
Na polÃtica, jogo duro ajuda a controlar o poder
Petistas, no Brasil, e democratas, nos EUA, tendem a constranger presidentes eleitos, na Justiça e no Congresso
Separadas por apenas dez dias, duas das maiores democracias do planeta, o Brasil e os Estados Unidos, farão escolhas nas urnas que legarão questões espinhosas para quem aderiu a um ideário da moda. PolÃticos não deveriam chegar aos extremos do que as regras permitem na luta pelo poder, reza essa doutrina, sob pena de colocarem o próprio regime liberal em risco.
Deslegitimar a vitória do adversário, questionando-a na Justiça por exemplo, não seria uma prática abonada. Buscar o impeachment de um presidente eleito pela população tampouco seria recomendável.
Essas táticas, embora dentro da lei, ajudariam a corroer o pacto de convivência entre forças antagônicas e a transformar a disputa num vale-tudo para esmagar o rival.
As cartas se embaralham. A julgar pelas probabilidades, os democratas tomarão dos republicanos a maioria na Câmara federal e poderão abrir o impeachment de Trump. O PT tende a questionar na Justiça a legitimidade da provável vitória de Jair Bolsonaro com base no escândalo do WhatsApp, revelado pela Folha.
Que dirão os estetas dos bons modos na nova configuração? Que os democratas deveriam recusar-se a constranger Trump? Que os petistas precisam baixar a cabeça e aceitar bovinamente a vitória de Bolsonaro?
Washington is no longer content with slow exhaustion; it has adopted a strategy of swift, symbolic strikes designed to recalibrate the international landscape.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are faced with a "scenario" in which Washington's exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.
The message is unmistakable: there are no absolute guarantees and state sovereignty is conditional when it clashes with the interests of powerful states.
Venezuela is likely to become another wasted crisis, resembling events that followed when the U.S. forced regime changes in Libya, Afghanistan and Iraq.
We are faced with a "scenario" in which Washington's exclusive and absolute dominance over the entire hemisphere, from Greenland and Canada in the north to the southern reaches of Argentina and Chile.