The leading role of the STF and the eclipse of the elections

In four weeks we will be at the polls choosing president, governors, senators, federal and state deputies. Newspaper headlines should be dedicated to government plans, proposals, dark horse candidates and peculiarities of political financing. But the reality is different, all we discussed was the Federal Supreme Court and its ministers.

We have known for some time that the court is inventive in its role as guardian of the Constitution. To focus on recent examples, the STF reinterpreted the constitutional rule that establishes a ceiling for public servants' payments, creating a parallel ceiling for the Judiciary. Another example is the maintenance of the president of the TJ-RJ as acting governor of the state. That the court acts politically is also nothing new. The dean of the house, minister Gilmar Mendes, is the best example. In one of his most emblematic decisions, in December last year he restricted, alone, to the PGR the power to request impeachment of STF ministers, shielding himself and his colleagues.

This week ministers Alexandre de Moraes and André Mendonça are the protagonists. Moraes is accused of acting, if not as a lawyer, at least as an advisor to the former banker accused of several frauds, Daniel Vorcaro. A counselor with open access to the counselee's investigators. Mendonça, in turn, is accused by politicians and by Moraes himself of making political use of his position as rapporteur, maintaining secrecy or delaying investigations that could harm the candidate of the political group that nominated him to the Supreme Court and his allies. Moraes even filed a request for an investigation against Mendonça with the STF, using the same methods that he accuses his colleague of using improperly. The accusation was registered as part of a Fake News investigation, which legal experts point out should have already been closed.

In addition to contributing to the institutional degradation of Brazilian democracy, putting at risk unprecedented decisions – such as the convictions of generals and former president Bolsonaro for attempted coup d'état – and immensely increasing the chances of interventions in the Court in the event of the victory of a right-wing presidential candidate, the Supreme Court harms the debate of ideas in the current electoral cycle.

Have you, dear reader, already decided on your votes? Have you already considered the issue that distinguishes the main candidates and will guide your voting decision? Are you remembering that the president needs a majority in the Chamber and the Senate (and the governor, in the state assembly) to be successful in implementing his agenda, and are you considering this point when choosing your candidates for the Legislature? Remember that the vote for federal and state deputies is a vote for the entire party list and that, when choosing a candidate, you are simply indicating your preference for ordering the list? Or are your attentions all focused on the Supreme Court, whose ten ministers you not only know by heart, but also know who sits next to who in the STF plenary?

Supreme Court ministers, in principle, do not need your vote to remain in office, but, apparently, they decided to be the protagonists of the October election.