by Eric Nogueira Andrade
Reviewed by Matheus Lucas Hebling
Elections lie at the very heart of democracy, and they are exclusive periods in which citizens are most politically engaged, providing the foundation for all representative democracy. Given such relevance, electoral rules are the subject of considerable attention from academics and the public debate around the world. In Brazil, this relevance has produced intense discussions and studies about the need of electoral reforms.
The agenda for studies on electoral institutions has developed mainly in two directions: the analysis of the consequences generated by electoral rules on party competition; and in the formulation of causal models that explain not only the current institutional choices but also their eventual reforms.
Studies analyzing the consequences of electoral rules have increased greatly over the past decades, and the central common finding has been the confirmation that institutional specificities matter. Electoral rules directly impact the profile of governments, making them more or less representative, stable or unstable, effective or inefficient, inclusive, or exclusive. The studies on the explanations to understand the conditions under which electoral reforms take place, however, continue with most of their questions unanswered.
Although we know many things about the electoral reform processes, this knowledge is not systematic. Much of what we know came from case studies around the globe and even the surveys produced were not extensive enough to reach more generalized conclusions. According to the author, all the main issues have been covered through different methods, although none of them can provide a decisive answer. Three can be distinguished. The first uses formal theories to derive precise hypotheses that can be tested against reality (Benoit, 2004; Boix, 1999; Colomer, 2004a, 2005; Iversen; Soskice, 2006). The latter searches for empirical evidence through case studies using quantitative statistical methods or qualitative methods. Boix (1999) and Colomer (2004a, 2005) test their hypotheses from a database. Gallagher (2005) and Katz (2005) develop inferences through extensive surveys. Finally, the third group uses intense analysis focused on small groups of cases in an attempt to escape generalist hypotheses. Examples of this group include post-communist countries, Asian and Pacific countries, African countries, Israel in a comparative perspective, and on changes in the electoral system in Europe since 1945.
When we analyze recent studies on electoral reforms, we can infer that they have produced two main theoretical perspectives to explain the electoral reforms of recent decades. The first is based on the power-maximization notion. Part of this literature, embracing the rational choice theory (Tsebelis, 1990; Cox, 1997; Boix, 1999; Colomer, 2004a; Bowler et al, 2006; Benoit, 2004, 2007), has produced explanations that describe the reform process as essentially a game of interest of elites who, as party rivals, formulate their calculations based on what they hope to obtain in terms of political positions.
For this approach, the people demand institutional reforms as part of a process described by the agenda-setting theory. This theoretical concept assumes that politicians control the process of choosing the electoral system, motivated by the possibility of maximizing their power.
The second theoretical perspective, developed by Shugart (2001) and Shugart and Wattenberg (2001b), allows a large range of actors to be involved, including politicians and civil organizations, and perceive electoral reform as the result of a mix of contingent and inherent factors. Thus, inherent factors are those linked to pre-existing historical conditions and demands, while contingent factors produce conditions and demands arising from circumstantial events such as crises and scandals. For this theoretical approach, electoral reforms may “occur in response to specific instances of systemic failures”.
In Brazil, the institutional arrangement that has shaped the representation, particularly the electoral system, has been strongly criticized since its foundation under the 1988 Constitution. Known by the term “presidencialismo de coalizão” (coalition presidentialism), it was originally described as a model with alarming limitations that would obstruct its fully functioning without potential crises. The main concern of this first interpretation is related to the impasse generated by the relationship between an independently elected executive and a legislature characterized by a highly fragmented party system. The problem identified is the combination of presidentialism with a proportional electoral system. Throughout the democratic transition and in the early years of the new Constitution, part of the Brazilian academic production was deeply involved in demonstrating that the institutions chosen by the constituent did not have ungovernability as a subproduct, but rather a rationalized “presidencialismo de coalizão”, as demonstrated by Santos (2003).
Hence, we can divide the studies on the performance of “presidencialismo de coalizão” in Brazil into two perspectives. The first seeks to defend the fruitlessness of this model (Abranches, 1988, 2001; Lamounier, 1991a, 1991b, 1992a, 1992b, 1994; Mainwaring, 1991; 1997a, among others). Under this theoretical approach, there are authors (Ames, 2001 and 2003; Cintra, 2000, 2005a, 2005b, 2006, 2007, 2008; Fleischer, 2005, 2006, 2008, 2014, among others) who attribute to the electoral system the main cause of the malfunctioning of the mentioned institutional arrangement. According to this view, the negative effects of the “presidencialismo de coalizão” are enhanced by the specificities of the open list proportional model, since it “does not induce the formation of ideologically cohesive parties and disciplined behavior and does not prevent party fragmentation” (Cintra, 2007, p. 250. In free translation).
The second perspective opposes the first and argues that the “presidencialismo de coalizão” is rational and viable (Figueiredo and Limongi 1995, 1996, 1998, 1999; 2017; Santos, 2003, among others). It took time to demonstrate the functionality of the Brazilian system. It was attested that the Executive produces decisions and that it has the means to avoid the governance crisis. It was also demonstrated that there is an initiative in the Legislative with significant participation especially in ordinary laws of social content. And, above all, recent studies indicate the participation of Congressmen in other forms of Legislative production (Amorim Neto; Santos, 2003; Almeira, 2015; Freitas, 2016). These researches show that far from an inherent conflict, what is observed is the partnership, most of the time, between the two powers, Executive and Legislative, in the production of decisions.
Thus, the discussion extends to the political discussion and countless attempts of reform have been made throughout basically all elected legislatures without being able to change the electoral system. Although national literature can explain the functionality of Brazil’s institutional arrangement, it fails to explain the huge discontent of the political class with electoral rules and the recurring frustrated attempts to change. After all, if the political system works well, why successive attempts of reform? And if there are successive attempts, as a result of the dissatisfaction of the political class and/or the supposed malfunctioning of the rules, why the electoral system remains unchanged?
Some of these issues were examined in a recent study (Andrade, 2019), and the conclusion reached was that specificities in Brazilian electoral rules increase the insecurity of the political class, in terms of reelection, at the same time as empowering voters. Therefore, the big challenge is to reform the electoral system without provoking the median voter. Nevertheless, much still needs to be empirically tested until we have more decisive conclusions.
Abrances, Sérgio. Presidencialismo de coalizão: o dilema institucional brasileiro. Dados, v. 31, n. 1, p. 5-38, 1988.
Almeida, Acir. “Processo legislativo: mudanças recentes e desafios”. Boletim de Análise Político-Institucional, Brasília, Ipea, n. 7, pp. 44-50, jun. 2015
Ames, Barry. The Deadlock of Democracy in Brazil: Interests, Identities, and Institutions in Comparative Politics. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press. 2001.
______. Os entraves da democracia no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 2003.
Amorim Neto, Octavio; Santos, Fabiano. “O segredo ineficiente revisto: o que propõem e o que aprovam os deputados brasileiros”. Dados, vol. 46, n. 4, pp. 661-698, 2003.
Andrade, Eric N. Reforma Política e Sistema Eleitoral no Brasil: uma análise comparativa com a experiência alemã. 2019. Tese (Doutorado em Ciência Política) – Instituto Universitário de Pesquisas do Rio de Janeiro, Rio de Janeiro, 2019.
Benoit, Kenneth. Models of electoral system change. Electoral studies: 23, p. 363-89, 2004.
______. Electoral laws as political consequences: Explaining the origins and chance of electoral institutions. Annual review of political Science: 10, p. 363-90, 2007.
Boix, Charles. Setting the rules of the game: The choice of electoral systems in advanced democracies. American political Science review: 93, p 609-24, 1999.
Bowler, Shaun; Donovan, Todd; Karp, Jeff. Why politicians like electoral institutions: Self-interest, values, or ideology? Journal of politics: 68(2), p. 434-46, 2006.
Cintra, Antonio Octávio. O sistema eleitoral alemão como modelo para a reforma do sistema eleitoral brasileiro. Brasília: Consultoria Legislativa, 2000.
______. A proposta de reforma política: prós e contras. Brasília: Consultoria Legislativa, 2005.
______. Majoritário ou proporcional? em busca do equilíbrio na construção de um sistema eleitoral. In: FLEISCHER, David ET ALL. Reforma política: Agora vai? Rio de Janeiro: Konrad Adenauer, 2005b.
______. Sistema eleitoral. In: AVRITZER, Leonardo; ANASTÁCIA, Fátima. Reforma política no Brasil. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 2006.
______. A origem é o sistema eleitoral. In: CINTRA, Antônio; NOLETO, Pedro; SEABRA, Roberto. Reforma política. Brasília: Revista plenarium, 2007.
______. Reforma política: Mudando os termos da “conexão eleitoral”. In: MULHOLLAND, Timothy; RENNÓ, Lúcio L (ORGs.). Reforma política em questão. Brasília: UnB, 2008.
Colomer, Josep M. The strategy and history of electoral system choice. 2004a. In: Colomer, 3-78, 2004b.
______. Handbook of electoral system choice. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, 2004b.
______. It’s parties that choose electoral systems (or, Duverger’s laws upside down). Political studies, 53, p. 1-21, 2005.
Cox, Gary W. Making votes count: Strategic coordination in the world’s electoral systems. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
Fleischer, David; Abrances, Sérgio; Cintra, Octavio; Rial, Juan; Speck, Bruno. Reforma política: Agora vai? Rio de Janeiro: Konrad Adenauer, 2005.
Fleischer, David. A bancada federal mineira: Trinta anos de recrutamento político – 1945-1975. Revista brasileira de estudos políticos: Vol. 45, p. 7-58, 1976.
______. Análise Política das perspectivas da Reforma Política no Brasil, 2005-2006. In: Fleischer, David; Abrances, Sérgio; Cintra, Antônio; Rial, Juan; Speck, Bruno. (Orgs.). Reforma Política: Agora vai? Rio de Janeiro: Adenauer. 2005.
______. Coligações eleitorais. In: Avritzer, L; Anastasia, F. (orgs.). 2006.
______. Reforma política no Brasil: Os partidos políticos em questão. In: Mulholland, Timothy; Rennó, Lúcio L (ORGs.). 2008.
______. A Reforma Política no Brasil: uma história sem fim (1995-2011). In: Soares, G. A. D; Lavareda, Antonio. (orgs.). A Relevância da Ciência Política. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Revan. P. 121-147. 2014.
Figueiredo, A.; Limongi, Fernando. O Congresso Nacional: Organização, processo decisório e produção legal. Cadernos de pesquisa. CEBRAP: Entrelinhas, vol. 5, p. 1-97, 1996.
______; Limongi, Fernando. Bases institucionais do presidencialismo de coalizão. Lua Nova, vol. 44, p. 81-106, 1998.
______; Limongi, Fernando. Executivo e Legislativo na Nova Ordem Constitucional. Rio de Janeiro: FGV, 1999.
______; Limongi, Fernando. A crise atual e o debate institucional. Novos estudos CEBRAP, vol.36, no.3. São Paulo. 2017.
Freiras, Andréa. O presidencialismo da coalizão. Rio de Janeiro: Konrad, 2016.
Gallagher, Michael; Mitchell, Paul. Introduction to electoral systems. In Gallagher, Michael; Mitchell, Paul (Eds.) The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: University Press. 2005.
Iversen, Torben; Soskice, David. Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: Why some democracies redistribute more than others. American political Science review, 100, p. 165-81, 2006.
Katz, Richard S. Why are there so many (or so few) electoral reforms? In: Gallagher, Michael; Mitchell, Paul (Eds.) The politics of electoral systems. Oxford: University Press, 2005.
Lamounier, Bolívar. (org.). A opção parlamentarista. São Paulo: Sumaré. 1991a.
______. Brasil: rumo ao parlamentarismo? In: Lamounier, B. (org.), A Opção Parlamentarista. São Paulo: Sumaré,1991b.
______. O modelo institucional dos anos 30 e a presente crise brasileira. Estudos Avançados, 6(14), 39-57, 1992a.
______. Estrutura Institucional e Governabilidade na Década de 1990. In: J. P. dos Reis Velloso (org.), O Brasil e as Reformas Políticas. Rio de Janeiro, José Olympio, pp. 102-38, 1992b.
______. Brazil: Toward Parlamentarism? In: J. J. Linz e A. Valenzuela (comps.), The Failure of Presidential Democracy: The Case of Latin America. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. 1994.
Mainwaring, Scott. Politicians, Parties, and Electoral Systems: Brazil in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Politics, vol. 24, nº 1. 1991.
______, Scott. Multipartism, Robust Federalism and Presidentialism in Brazil. In: Mainwaring, S.; Shugart, M. S (eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1997a.
Mainwaring, S.; Shugart, M. S (eds.), Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.1997b.
Mccombs, Maxwell E.; Shaw, Donald L. The agenda-setting function of mass media. Oxford University Press: The public opinion quarterly, vol. 36, n° 2, p. 176-87, 1972.
Shugart, Matthew S. “Extreme” electoral system and the appeal of the mixed-member alternative. In: Shugart, Matthew S; Wattenberg, Martin P. (eds.). Mixed-Member Electoral Systems. The Best of Both Worlds. Oxford University Press, 2001.
Shugart, Matthew S; Wattenberg, Martin P. Introduction: The electoral reform of the twenty-first century. In: Shugart; Wattenberg (eds.), Mixed-Member electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 1-6, 2001a.
______. A definition and typology. In: Shugart; Wattenberg(eds.), Mixed-Member electoral Systems: The Best of Both Worlds? Oxford, Oxford University Press, p. 9-24, 2001b.
Santos, Fabiano. O poder legislativo no presidencialismo de coalizão. Belo Horizonte: UFMG, 2003.
Tsebelis, George. Nested games: Rational choice in comparative politics. Berkeley: University of California Press, 1990.