Blog Marcos L. Mucheroni Filosofia, Noosfera e cibercultura

One can not confuse the present system in agony with legitimate forms of coalition, made from partisan programs or government programs, ways of creating governance in many systems of democratic governments worldwide.

The current Brazilian system, defined by the Brazilian sociologist Sérgio Abranches in 1988, therefore serves only for the Brazilian system and begins before the lulo-petismo (PT party and his chief), has become a way of managing the state in excuse relations between the executive and legislative power.

The recent denunciation of the Brazilian mega-construction company Odebrecht reveals scenes and mechanisms of how this was done during all these years and gradually reveals the true face of the interests of the State and the Brazilian people in the management of the country.

The consequences of this are still unpredictable, but it is true that conscious people want ALL involved to be punished, and there are few innocents in this whole lama.

This analysis, there are many others clear as the one that says that the social programs were important despite the crisis or that they were cause of the crisis, in my view both false, there is a Brazilian historical problem of the firmness of the institutions and their consequences for a stable future Of democracy and social progress (development and economic stability are important, but are of “neighboring” departments)..

Only a good definition of long-term institutionality can determine the possibilities for a country’s stable evolution in a chronic crisis that seems to have no end.

It is necessary to look at how Brazilian history has been characterized by the always turbulent coexistence of institutional elements that together produce certain recurring and often destabilizing effects.

These bases are easily seen in our republican tradition: presidentialism, federalism, bicameralism, multi-partyism, and proportional representation, but with the effects of small states where a deputy needs fewer votes than a larger state.

It is extremely naïve to think that this political-institutional institution has taken its stand by chance, still less fortuitously throughout our history, was thought by colonels and by the central power.

The contradictions of a social, economic, political and cultural nature that historically and structurally identify the process of our Brazilian social formation are ignored and neglected over many years of public policies to eradicate misery and to safeguard workers’ rights. People made it, in general, crumbs to “keep the people quiet”.

But we have certain important singularities in the aspect of long-term institutional stability, when we think of the social transformations that the country has undergone in the last four decades, and not two as some of the same presidentialism want of coalition, the structural degree of our society seems to be There is a consequent propensity for conflict.

With the United States, England and New Zealand being bipartisan systems, and deserving analysis separately, the representation of a maximum of 5 parties from Austria, Germany, Belgium, Switzerland, Sweden, Norway and Japan, with 6 parties: Japan, Belgium, Finland and Australia.

A maximum of 5 parties with clear programs could be an important alternative to political stability in Brazil.