SUPREMO em CHAMAS: The Economist expõe o AUTORITARISMO de Moraes e do STF

Summary

The Economist magazine has sharply criticized Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF), particularly Justice Alexandre de Moraes, for its growing power and authoritarian actions. The editorial argues that Moraes has abused his power to censor critics, control social media, and make unilateral decisions on significant political issues. The STF has been accused of overstepping its judicial role, undermining democracy by acting as a super-legislator. The critique highlights the lack of transparency and accountability within the court, warning that its unchecked authority poses a dangerous threat to Brazil’s political freedom and stability.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Economist criticizes Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) and specifically Minister Alexandre de Moraes for excessive power concentration and abuses under the guise of legal defense of democracy.
• 😀 The magazine warns that Brazil is facing an institutional collapse, as the STF operates outside its intended functions, disregarding democratic principles.
• 😀 Moraes is depicted as an authoritarian figure who governs the internet, censors opposition, and uses unilateral decisions to control public discourse without adequate legal or legislative oversight.
• 😀 The STF has been acting as an informal legislator, making decisions that would traditionally belong to elected representatives or a transparent legislative process.
• 😀 The Economist criticizes Moraes' frequent use of monocratic decisions (decisions made alone) in highly politically charged cases, undermining the role of collective judgment in a democratic court.
• 😀 The editorial raises concerns over the partisanship in the STF, noting how the court has become an active player in political battles, instead of upholding neutrality.
• 😀 Moraes' power is exemplified by actions like suspending social media profiles, freezing bank accounts, and even interfering in foreign policy, such as blocking the extradition of a Bulgarian national.
• 😀 The STF's loss of credibility among Brazilians is highlighted by a dramatic drop in public approval, falling from 31% in 2022 to just 12%.
• 😀 The article points out that no other democracy allows such unchecked power to the judiciary, with no mechanisms for accountability or public oversight.
• 😀 The Economist calls for urgent reforms, including limiting the STF’s monocratic decisions, establishing a code of ethics for the court, and restoring checks and balances to ensure that the judiciary doesn’t undermine democracy.

Q & A

What is the main critique of Brazil's Supreme Federal Court (STF) in the article from The Economist?

The main critique is that the STF, especially Minister Alexandre de Moraes, has accumulated excessive power, acting with partiality and violating basic democratic principles by making unilateral decisions without transparency or legislative approval.

How does The Economist describe Minister Alexandre de Moraes in terms of his power?

The Economist describes Minister Moraes as concentrating surprisingly broad powers, often acting unilaterally and abusing his authority under the guise of legality to suppress opposition and control public discourse.

What specific actions of Alexandre de Moraes are highlighted as problematic in the article?

The article highlights Moraes' actions such as censoring social media profiles, blocking bank accounts, suspending passports, opening investigations without legal due process, and making decisions that affect individuals and companies without public debate or legislative approval.

How has the STF's role been seen in relation to democracy in Brazil?

The STF has been criticized for undermining democracy by acting as a super-legislator, creating laws through judicial decisions and expanding its authority into areas traditionally handled by elected representatives, effectively bypassing democratic processes.

What is the concern regarding the STF's decisions on high-profile cases, such as the trial of former President Jair Bolsonaro?

The concern is that the STF, under Moraes, is conducting politically charged cases with a partisan approach, exemplified by the composition of the panel judging Bolsonaro, which includes ministers with direct ties to the current president, Lula, undermining the legitimacy of the process.

How does the article describe the STF's decision-making process?

The article criticizes the STF for making decisions with little or no transparency, often without a full panel of judges, especially in cases of national importance. This practice is seen as a violation of democratic principles, as it consolidates power in the hands of individual judges.

What impact has the STF's actions had on public trust?

Public trust in the STF has significantly decreased, with only 12% of Brazilians rating the court's work as 'good' or 'excellent,' a sharp drop from 31% in 2022. The court's perceived bias and inconsistent rulings have contributed to this loss of credibility.

What is the article's stance on the STF's use of the Constitution to justify its actions?

The article acknowledges that the STF often justifies its actions using the Constitution, but it warns that this practice leads to the manipulation of the law to suit political agendas, undermining the original role of the judiciary as an impartial arbiter.

What is the broader international implication of the STF's actions, according to the article?

The article suggests that the STF's increasing concentration of power and judicial activism has made Brazil an outlier among democracies, with no other country granting such authority to its judiciary. This has raised alarms internationally about the erosion of democratic norms in Brazil.

What does the article propose as a solution to limit the power of the STF?

The article proposes that the Brazilian legislature urgently pass laws to limit the STF's monocratic power, establish a code of ethics for the court, and restore balance between the branches of government, allowing the public to freely debate and participate in political processes without fear of persecution.