Rousseff's Impeachment In Brazil
In 2016, the Oxford Dictionary chose post-truth as the word of the year, due to the popularity it gained in Political Science literature. Publishers of The Economist and The New York Times, for instance, used this expression to describe Donald Trump’s campaign and Brexit’s consequences. The adjective refers to “relating to or denoting circumstances in which objective facts are less influential in shaping public opinion than appeals to emotion and personal belief”. Likewise, the global scenario points out to an era in which looks are even more deceiving and emotional arguments trigger mass support. Within the same time frame, Brazil dealt with Dilma Rousseff’s impeachment, conceived as one of its most alarming institutional crisis since redemocratization
in the 80s. Considering both the representatives’ behaviors and the reiterative Supreme Court interventions throughout the process, scholars claim the lack of legitimacy not only of the recently empowered President Michel Temer but also regarding Congress. Insofar the actors of institutional politics seem unreliable by the population, has the post-truth trend echoed in Brazil? The answer might be related to the major role played by Federal’s first instance courts in the highly-publicized Lava Jato investigation. Does the bias of disregarding traditional institutions enable courts and the brazilian Public Prosecutor’s Office to effectively cease the structural corruption in which the country’s cultural roots? Or would this situation be another example of facing truth a subsidiary concern? Is there any sort of strategy to highlight the Judiciary Branch as “the only alternative” among the crisis? Thus, our research reflects upon to what degree Prosecutors and Judges have been channeling public yearning. Besides the typical approach of whether their performances are constitutional or not, a tricky question remains: how is the truth conveyed on prosecution and judicial sentences while surrounded by popular demands and the massive media coverage?
in the 80s. Considering both the representatives’ behaviors and the reiterative Supreme Court interventions throughout the process, scholars claim the lack of legitimacy not only of the recently empowered President Michel Temer but also regarding Congress. Insofar the actors of institutional politics seem unreliable by the population, has the post-truth trend echoed in Brazil? The answer might be related to the major role played by Federal’s first instance courts in the highly-publicized Lava Jato investigation. Does the bias of disregarding traditional institutions enable courts and the brazilian Public Prosecutor’s Office to effectively cease the structural corruption in which the country’s cultural roots? Or would this situation be another example of facing truth a subsidiary concern? Is there any sort of strategy to highlight the Judiciary Branch as “the only alternative” among the crisis? Thus, our research reflects upon to what degree Prosecutors and Judges have been channeling public yearning. Besides the typical approach of whether their performances are constitutional or not, a tricky question remains: how is the truth conveyed on prosecution and judicial sentences while surrounded by popular demands and the massive media coverage?