MercoPress, en Español

Montevideo, October 23rd 2017 - 09:51 UTC

Brazilian congress advances political reform to streamline parties; 28 have elected members

Thursday, September 14th 2017 - 20:49 UTC
Full article 18 comments
Brazil currently has 35 political parties, 28 of which are represented in Congress. One of them, the Brazilian Women's Party, has only one federal lawmaker, a man Brazil currently has 35 political parties, 28 of which are represented in Congress. One of them, the Brazilian Women's Party, has only one federal lawmaker, a man
The proliferation of parties has forced Brazilian governments to forge unwieldy coalitions to stay in power by distributing jobs, influence and pork barrel spending The proliferation of parties has forced Brazilian governments to forge unwieldy coalitions to stay in power by distributing jobs, influence and pork barrel spending
Brazil's public funding has encouraged the founding of new parties, several of them with no clear platforms. There are currently 67 requests to register new parties Brazil's public funding has encouraged the founding of new parties, several of them with no clear platforms. There are currently 67 requests to register new parties

Brazil's lower house of Congress has given initial approval to a bill to reduce the huge array of political parties that have made it hard to govern the country and contributed to corruption. The chamber voted 384-16 for the establishment of a minimum national vote threshold that parties must reach to get public funding and free radio and television time for their election campaigns. The requirement would be 1.5% of votes in 2018, rising to 3% in 2030.

 The constitutional amendment must be approved twice in each chamber of Congress by Oct. 7 to apply in next year's general elections.

The proliferation of parties has forced Brazilian governments to forge unwieldy coalitions to stay in power by distributing jobs, influence and pork barrel spending, which critics say has provided fertile ground for graft.

Small parties facing extinction opposed the vote threshold, which they said would favor larger established parties and hinder renewal of Brazil's scandal-plagued political class.

The amendment also seeks to do away with the loose, ad hoc coalitions that parties often form on an election-by-election basis, regardless of ideology or platform.

Brazil currently has 35 political parties, 28 of which are represented in Congress. One of them, the Brazilian Women's Party, has only one federal lawmaker, who is a man.

Brazil's public funding model has encouraged the founding of new parties, several of them with no clear platforms. There are currently 67 requests to register new parties, according to Brazil's top electoral court.

A sweeping three-year-old probe of endemic corruption in Brazil has uncovered a web of political bribes and kickbacks implicating dozens of politicians, including President Michel Temer and a quarter of his cabinet.

Next week lawmakers will vote on a separate amendment creating a new fund of taxpayer money to finance campaigns.

That amendment would also replace a system of party lists to elect congressmen with races in which individual candidates with the most votes would win office.

Top Comments

Disclaimer & comment rules
  • :o))

    REF: “a bill to reduce the huge array of political parties”:

    And when are they going to pass the bill to reduce a HUGE number of crooks in the political system?

    Sep 14th, 2017 - 09:12 pm 0
  • Jack Bauer

    Political reform ?? what bullsh*t !! these politicians are mighty generous with themselves...“The requirement would be 1.5% of votes in 2018, rising to 3% in 2030.”

    so, of the 32 or 33 current parties, that should reduce the number to what ? perhaps 28 ?

    Having six (6) parties would already be three too many. But of course, if it were good for Brazil, it would be bad for all the damned parasites...

    Sep 16th, 2017 - 02:51 am 0
  • DemonTree

    @JB
    At least it should stop another 67 tiny parties from appearing. In UK elections candidates must pay a deposit, and lose it if they don't get a certain percentage of the vote. That cuts down on non-serious people (though we still have the Monster Raving Loony Party).

    RE http://en.mercopress.com/2017/09/06/a-weakened-temer-faces-a-second-corruption-charge-with-a-divided-congress/comments

    “will be away 20 sept to 27 Oct.”
    That's a long time, are you going on holiday? I'm actually on holiday this week, I can still post but won't have much time for long replies.

    As for the children, that's the point: they can't turn them away. It's not Obama, it's the international laws on refugees. And deporting people is never gonna be perfect, there are just too many to get them out quickly. Trump has deported less than Obama did in his first six months, so you can see it's not a lack of will.

    Kids under DACA were mostly brought by their parents, so they didn't commit a crime themselves, and people who have committed serious crimes are not eligible. I don't see why vetting would be necessary, what would you check for, and how much would you spend on it?

    “Have heard nutcases arguing that not allowing Muslims in, or turning away some - who could become potential terrorists - is the cause of their hate for the west and its culture”

    I have never heard that. I've heard people say that invading Iraq, and bombing countries in the Middle East, made a lot of Muslims hate the US, and I think it's true.

    I've also heard that IS wants to start a huge war between Muslims and 'the West', and they tell people that Islam is incompatible with western values and the US is prejudiced against Islam and will never accept them. Calling for a ban on all Muslims doesn't exactly help to prove them wrong...

    Sep 16th, 2017 - 04:16 pm 0
Read all comments

Commenting for this story is now closed.
If you have a Facebook account, become a fan and comment on our Facebook Page!