Brazilian Institutional changes

Transcription

1 Brazilian Institutional changes Larissa Rodrigues Vacari de Arruda Larissa Rodrigues Vacari de Arruda, 28, from Campo Grande - Mato Grosso do Sul (Brazil), is a graduate who received her Bachelor s degree in Sociology and Politics (Social Science) at the São Paulo's Foundation School of Sociology and Politics - FESPSP. In 2013, she earned a Master s degree in Political Science at Federal University of Sao Carlos-UFSCar. She wrote her Master Thesis on political elites in Brazil, and currently is Visiting PhD Researcher at King`s College London and PhD candidate at Federal University of Sao Carlos- UFSCar, Brazil. Her interests include Political Elites, Regionalism, Federalism, Brazilian Political and Social Thought, Brazil's Political History. Abstract Brazil had plenty of institutional change in twenty century, an Oligarchy Republic, two Dictatorships, and two more democrat periods in and , finally, Democratization in 1980s. This paper objective is to analyse the institutional changes within the Brazilian regimes between 1891 to 1967, and our research question is which type of institutional change Brazilian Constitutions reveals in the period of 1891 to 1967? For this, Historical Institutionalism is theory approach utilized and we compare five Constitutions as regards organization of Executive, Legislative and Judiciary; federalism; and representative system. Furthermore, we argue that Brazilian politics had some characteristics that difficult Democracy implementation such as Union controlled states and municipalities, Executive strongly conducting Legislative, and restriction of opposition. Those features not only related with Military Dictatorship, in fact, those traits are present for long time in Brazilian politics. Keywords Institutional change, Historical Institutionalism, Brazilian politics, Federalism, Representative system, Powers organization.

2 1. Introduction The 20th century in the Brazilian political history was tumultuous and unstable in a difficult trajectory to the Democracy consolidation. First, with proclamation of Republic in , which was an oligarchical and undemocratic period; after, the Vargas Era ( ), with a civilian Dictatorship, the Estado Novo (New State, ), had two Constitutions, a more open one in 1934 and an authoritarian in 1937; next, Brazil had a brief democratic regime in 1945 to 1964 with new rules established in the Constitution of 1946; posteriorly, a coup d état in 1964 inaugurated a Military Dictatorship and its emblematic Constitution in Finally, through the democratization in 1980s, Brazil seemed overcome those issues. As it be noted, in the periodization of 1891 to 1967, Brazil passed by many institutional changes. This paper objective is to analyse those institutional changes over periods and our theoretical premise is that political actors had adapted to the constant changes; therefore, our research questions is which type of institutional change Brazilian Constitutions reveals in the period of 1891 to 1967? For analyse those changes we used as theoretical framework historical institutionalism by which it can illustrate a path of permanencies among those regimes as well institutional changes. In general, few researches utilized this methodology to compare those regimes, and when they used history is often to highlight social connections or, analyse institutional change between two regimes. Beyond this, the importance of this research is to offer another interpretation of Brazilian politics through to clarify political patterns, which help to understanding the path of Democracy construction as well as its difficult of implementation in Brazil. This paper is organized as follows. First, the literature review and theoretical framework utilized. Second, in the section Methodology, the conceptualization and operationalization of research, and we shall clarify the basic definitions, variables, and hypothesis. Moreover, we define the method of historical institutionalism research. Finally, in the next section Brazilian Constitutions and institutional change, we define and analyse the data. Furthermore, we shall argue that Brazilian politics had some characteristics that difficult Democracy implementation such as Union controlling of states and municipalities, strong Executive conducting Legislative, personal politics and charismatics presidents, and 1 As known, Latin America was mainly colonized by Spain and Portugal. After Independence, Spanish America divided and became Republics. In contrary, Portuguese America maintained united in a Monarchy (1822) until 1889 when Brazil became a Republic. 2

3 restriction of opposition. Those features not only relate with Military Dictatorship or the Estado Novo, in fact, those traits are present for long time in Brazilian politics. 2. Literature review and Theoretical framework Brazilian researchers used often the historical framework to understand its society; however, those studies focus on social interpretations of Brazil instead the history integrated the analysis as substantial part of explanation, and institutional change were not usually considered. The classical example are two books: Casa Grande & Senzala (The Masters and the Slaves) published in 1933 by Gilberto Freyre; and Raizes do Brasil (Roots of Brazil) published in 1936 by Sergio Buarque de Hollanda. Both authors offers a new interpretation of Brazilian society trough history and explore the Portuguese heritage as well the Colonial past. Freyre conclude that Brazil had a positive side of mixture of races in a moment when racist interpretation was supported. Hollanda, through ideal type homem cordial (cordial man) define Brazilian as people that have personal and passionate motivation of behaviour. Although this perspective was seminal in the Brazilian Social Sciences, a second approach used history to clarify political patterns and institutional changes. Two classical books are Coronelismo: the municipality and representative government in Brazil first published in 1945 by Victor Nunes Leal; and States and Party system a 1964 published in 1976 by Maria C. Campello de Souza. Leal dialogued with two approach; first, he brilliant theorized on Coronelismo, which was a political phenomenon in Brazilian society; secondly, he explored institutional frameworks in Brazilians municipalities since colonial times until Campello, who utilized only the second perspective, explained the political party system formation over the period , and demonstrated how the institutions from dictatorship continued in the democracy in Another significant book, affiliate to second approach, is The barons of the federation by Fernando Abrucio. The author analyses the federalism in Brazil since First Republic ( ) until Democratization in 1988, and demonstrates how the governors strengthened against federal power over the period of democratization. As mentioned, this paper utilize historical institutionalism as theoretical framework. The historical perspective analysis is especially interesting for political scientists (Sartori, 1981), because through history political scientist can exposes casual process and interpretative pattern. According to Heinz (2011), history contributes to elucidate State dynamics and its internal configuration, to understand the movement, identities and profile 3

4 from political elites. For Codato (2010), political scientists should come back to history to pursue political structures not analysed yet. Although many studies about political actors are available, often biographies or memories without structure which actors are insert. Because of that, Codato argues that is important considering political institutions. For this, ` diachronic represents a political dimension indispensable to focus on institutional anatomy (Marenco, 2008). Two of masterful examples of this contribution are Coercion, Capital and European States by Charles Tilly; and States and Social Revolutions: a Comparative Analysis of France, Russia, and China by Theda Skocpol. Tilly analyses the formation of European national states exposing patterns and State formation theory; and Skocpol, from a structural perspective, investigates internal and external causes for social revolution erupted in the three countries. Furthermore, Skocpol adds that comparative analysis should focus on valid associations of potential causes, and the researcher can make connection of case relating of phenomenon or/and distinguish cases that could explicate the phenomenon. For this, the theoretical framework utilized is Historical Institutionalism that allow to understand the institutional change over the periods. Historical institutionalism is an approach to studying politics considering the ways in which institutions structure and shape political behaviour and outcomes (Steinmo, 2008). Institutionalists are scholars who took special emphasis on the role institutions structuring behaviour and the most common definition of institutions is they are rules (Steinmo, 2008, p.10). According to Douglas North (2011, p.3), institutions are rules of the game in a society which means institutions are behaviour norms, conventions and codes of conduct that shape the human interaction. Therefore, institutions reduce uncertainty and the individual not have to wonder about everyday choices once they have structured options offered by institutions. About history, North points out that history matters not only future and present are connected by past, but because today`s and tomorrow`s choice are shaped by the past. And the past can only be made intelligible as a story of institutional evolution (North, 2011, p. VII). Thus, institutional change shapes the way societies evolve through time and hence is the key to understanding historical change (North, 2011, p.3). By this definition, historical institutionalists seek overall patterns, permanencies or/and ruptures. So historical institutionalists aim to make those patterns visible and trace their causal impacts (Pierson and Skocpol, 2002). Additionally, the Historical Institutionalism is an approach for comparing the institutional changes over the periods (Hall and Taylor, 2003), (Crouch, 2005), (Steinmo, 2008). To scholars of the Historical 4

5 Institutionalism, the history is not a chain the independents facts because it exists causal process between periods. Indeed, "past events influence the present situation and the history matters" (Fernandes, 2002, p.83). In other words, if a country chose to no longer follow a certain route, will face high risks and barriers to go another direction. Due the fact that institutions conditioned interactions and involve stability, which means institutions do not change easily. According to the majority of scholarly from sociological institutionalists, theorists of rational-choice, and historical institutionalists (Mahoney and Thelen, 2009), institution implies persistence. 3. Methodology Given the fact of consolidated institutions offer little possibilities for change, because of alterations are costly for individuals; institutionalism theorists had spent less attention in analyse the institutional change (Crouch, 2005). Nevertheless, it can be seen lots of alterations in the world, especially in Brazilian case over 20th century Oligarchical Republic ( ), Vargas Era ( ), Democracy ( ), Military Dictatorship ( ) and Democratization. Therefore, even though there institutional constraints against changes, they happen. Some authors concerned about this issue. From an economical angle, North points out that the agent of change is the individual entrepreneur, and change involves modifications in the rules, norms, and enforcement that constitute the institutional framework (North, 2011, p. 83). On the other hand, stability is defined as limitations imposed by institutions in a hierarchical arrangement that each level is more difficult to modify than the previous one; formal and informal rules take place in this configuration. In the same effort to analyse the institutional chance, Margaret Levi (1991) makes a significant contribution to the subject. She also admits that to change an institution is costly; moreover, institutions are made by individuals, and in turn, these institutions constrain the choices of these same individuals and future generations. The most important Levi`s definition is institutions implies distribution of powers, because institutions contain and create power. Hence, who exercise the power have conditions to maintain institutional arrangements and transform undesirable institutions arrangements. Therefore, according to Levi, institutional change is alteration in the rules or in the ways of its implementation. Given that her definition of formal institutions as social constructed rules that reflect distributions of power, formal institutional change when alteration of distribution of power 5

6 occur; and disobey is a tool that people subdue can use against powerful people, since obedience is important to institutional stability. An interesting model of institutional change is offer by Mahoney and Thelen (2009), focusing on gradual change. In contrast with studies which concern rapid transformations, for instance revolutions (Skopcol, 2015); Mahoy and Thelen (2009, p.2) are interested in constitutions, systems and arrangements that shift in more subtle ways across time. Before the authors present the model of institutional changes, political context, and agents behind such change; they state that institutional change results when problems of rule interpretation and enforcement open up space for actors to implement existing rules in new ways (Mahoney and Thelen, 2009, p.4). In fact, the institutions contain within them likelihoods of transformation which enable power distribution alterations. Political context and kind of institution determines the type of institutional change. Streeck and Thelen (2005) define four model of institutional change: displacement, layering, drift, and conversion. 1) Displacement occurs when the rules are replaced for new ones. Could be a rapid chance such as by revolutions or gradually substitution of rules. 2) Layering - is an introduction of new rules in the same time of old rule when old and new rules are connected. In contrast with displacement, layering does not provide a completely new change. Those amendments, additions, and revisions are small; however, over periods can promote a great change. 3) Drift when environment changes encourage alterations in the rules. 4) Conversion occurs when rules maintain exactly the same but rule interpretation change. From this above expose, this paper focus on formal rules changes through different Brazilian Constitutions. Until nowadays, Brazil had seven Constitutions. After Independence in 1822, the Monarchy established the first Constitution in 1824; with proclamation of Republic in 1889 came the second Constitution in 1891; due the fact of Revolution in 1930 when Getulio Vargas assumed government, a new Constitution in 1934, and also the civilian Dictatorship of Vargas in 1937 imposed the fourth Constitution in the same year. After the democratization a new Constitution in 1946 was made; in 1964 the military coup also imposed the sixth Constitution of 1967; finally, with democratization the last Constitution in Because the topic of this paper is institutional change in 20th century, we will analyse the majority of Constitutions in this century which means: Constitution of 1891, the most durable one with thirty-nine years; Constitution of 1934; 6

7 Constitution of 1937; Constitution of 1946; and Constitution of The last Constitution not integrated because of the scope limitations of paper. Given the fact that Constitutions are extensive, particularly Brazilians Constitutions, we chose three variables in our data. First variable is organization of Powers Legislative, Executive and Judiciary, which means I seek for attributions and competences from each Power in the five Constitutions. Second variable is federalism, in other words, how power and competences are distributed by municipal, state and federal spheres. Third variable is representative system by which electoral rule change over periods. By historical institutionalism we understand that institutions constrain choices and preferences of individuals, and also institutional change impose limitations in the political actor`s action. The hypothesis is institutional change in Brazil basically occurred by model of displacement (Mahoney and Thelen, 2009). Thus, historical institutionalism is methodology choose because this framework offer support to understanding changes and permanence over periods; although its weakness is not take account of ideas, culture and social values, however, historical institutionalism continued be the best approach to accomplish paper objective`s. 4. Brazilians Constitutions and institutional change This section aims clarifies the institutional change in the formal rules, specifically in five Constitutions over different regimes. For this, first we will explain shortly each historical context of Constitution as well the three variables considered, which organization of power, federalism, and representative system. Finally, we will compare the three variables among the five constitutions, as well we will classify according to Levi (1991), Skocpol (2015), Mahoney and Thelen (2009) the cases of institutional change Constitution of 1891 After Independence in 1822, particularly when Dom Pedro I resigned and returned to Portugal, finally the power was organized in Brazil (Fernandes, 1975) and states elites achieved the national power (Faoro, 2008). However, since Dom Pedro II assumed in 1840, the regional elites had accepted monarch interference in states which displeased those groups who claim commanded politics in their own states. The Monarchy lost support of many groups such as military, Catholic Church; and when slavery was abolished in 1888 without compensations, the slaveholders withdrew too. Then, a bloodless military 7

8 overthrow of the Empire in Afterward, Brazil became a Republic federalist with same electoral rules of Monarchy, the law Saraiva of a) Power organization The distribution of competences among the three powers Legislative, Executive and Judiciary was contradictory in the Constitution of First, in the article 15 explain that the three powers were national sovereignty bodies and they were harmonic and independent. Nevertheless, when the Constitution define the attributions of Legislative Power, which was a bicameral with Senate and Chamber of Deputies, it established that Legislative Power needed the sanction of president of Republic. Beyond the law, in the real world, president Campos Salles created the Política dos Governadores or Politics of Governors, as regards power distribution always prevail the president of Republic, the Legislative Power did not rule either administer because who drove and clarified is Executive Power (Cardoso, 2006). The Judiciary Power was controlled by local elites (Leal, 1975) and in the states only who local power allowed was condemned. In others words, the most absolute impunity in the municipalities as known as bread for his (local boss) friends, a stick for his enemies (Leal, 1977, p.14). b) Federalism In opposition to Monarchy, the Constitution of 1891 established great powers for states and the Union was weak. In comparison with Argentina and Mexico, Brazilian Constitution was the most decentralized, for example, Brazilians states could get loans abroad and had their state own military forces acting as police; states like Sao Paulo and Rio Grande do Sul had more power than federal forces. By Constitution of 1891, the Union could have interfered in states only in specific cases; nonetheless, the practice was the federal government only intervened in the weak states. From the point of view of municipalities, Constitution ensured autonomy in peculiar interest, however, never was defined which peculiar interest was (Leal, 1975). In the practice, the municipalities did not have both financial and electoral autonomy. The federalist form enabled two systems exist over whole period, the Politics of Governors and Coronelismo. As mentioned above, beyond limitations of Legislative Power, Politics of Governors also consisted in a support and alliances system, wherein political opposition was almost eliminated. Therefore, only allies assumed elective office, even though opposition had won election. Although there were several constrains for opposition not seek public office, if foes of state current situation won an election, they were forbidden take the public office. All support and reciprocity system among Union and 8

9 states also existed among states and their municipalities, namely Coronelismo. In the cities, the coronel (colonel or local chief) offered to state government the votes that he controlled from his dependents. Under the regime of 1891, Brazil was rural country and the majority of the population lived in farms and small towns. Some cities emerged from farms, and in these farms, the colonel had workers and did favours for people, and in return required their votes. The colonel provide the only help for the rural people, meanwhile it did not existed any public policies for this population. Ergo, the colonel controlled the rural votes and offer it for state government. In exchange, the state government allowed that colonel truly owned the municipality. In the city, the colonel chose the individuals for every public office, in others words, in period of scarce resources the colonel was the only way to access the publics occupations, like teacher and others in a public administration. In addition, the colonel used the police for personal issues, such as persecute his political enemies. The state government overlook the colonel acts whereas colonel spurred on deputy and senator victories. c) Representative system Indeed, Politics of Governors and Coronelismo did not enable representative system behave as desirable because opposition could not compete. Nonetheless, the most limitation to Democracy in this period was the fact that Republic did not change the monarchy law of 1881 about elections. By Saraiva law only literate men could vote, while majority of Brazilians were illiterate, hence overwhelming majority was excluded of right to vote. Moreover, also not allowed to vote women, homeless, lower rank military and some religious. In summary, during the First Republic the Constitution of 1891 established independence of Powers, but Legislative depended of president. Thus, the power organization was Executive Power conducting Legislative and Judiciary, as in the municipalities Judiciary Power obeyed the coronel. The federalism was the most decentralized when the states had more power and attributions than Union, and municipalities had followed states. Finally, the representative system struggled with limitations to opposition and few people participated Constitution of 1934 As shown, First Republic was very excluding as only small groups controlled political power. Due this fact, Republic gained lots of opponents such as middle class of big cities, military, and the states elites that not ruled. The state of Sao Paulo and Minas 9

10 Gerais had an agreement by which in every presidential election one state launched candidate with support of the other; in 1930 the president was from Sao Paulo and the candidate to next election should be from Minas Gerais with support of Sao Paulo, nevertheless, Sao Paulo decided launched another candidate from the state. In reaction, Minas Gerais with help state Rio Grande do Sul make the Revolution of 1930 and put down the First Republic. The provisory government had Getulio Vargas in command, and the old oligarchies and new establishment had issues that reflected in the Constitution of The period of 1930s was significant to construction of Brazilian national state once in First Republic the majority of organizations were from states, for example, political parties, and every state had their specific form of organization instead a national public health and education system. a) Power organization Enormous changes in the form of power organization happen since 1930, especially in the Judiciary Power. This power increase significantly with creation of Electoral Justice, which was responsible for execution of elections, and Labour Justice. The Legislative Power also changed, by Constitution of 1934, exercised by the Deputy Camber with collaboration of Senate. Moreover, the exclusive competences of Legislative required presidential sanction; therefore, Brazil had continued Executive Power with more attributions and competences. Otherwise, novel ideas were the inspiration by corporativism, consequently, the professional deputies who was indirectly elected by professional associations. b) Federalism Similarly, the organization among Union, states and municipalities also changed. Since 1930s, portions of Brazil considered not capable of provide itself and with less than 300 thousand inhabitants were transformed in Federal territories, which means that they lost their autonomy and federal power had control 2. In contrast with First Republic, the Union accumulated lots of attributions and competences such as electoral legislation of Union, states and municipalities; subsoil wealth; furthermore, the Constitution enabled more possibilities to interfere on states including to organize their financial situation, but the supreme court had to allow the intervention. The municipalities had better situation since Constitution permitted tax exclusive for municipalities; however, also state was allowed supervision of their municipalities. 2 The state of Acre was transformed in federal territory, and posteriorly others portions became federal territories such as Igucu, Ponta Pora, Roraima and Amapa. 10

11 Moreover, municipal councilman and major could be elected; nonetheless, states could have pointed major in the capital and cities considered strategical. c) Representative system Electoral rules changed since 1934 when more people were enabled to participate of representative system. For the first time women could vote, but the illiterate, that is majority of population, continued prohibited to vote; in addition, men and women who had a job was obligated to vote. Likewise, a great improvement was the creation of Electoral Justice; before the personal power of coronel-controlled election, and Electoral Justice organized and declared the winner of whole country that boosted the transparency of elections. Similarly to the First Republic, the Deputy Camber represented people and Senate represent states. Deputy Camber had universal suffrage, proportional system, equal and directly. In contrast, the vote became secret, and there were representatives of professional association indirectly elected. The number of deputies depend on number of population in the states that could be until twenty; the territories only had two deputies and not senators. In conclusion, Executive Power continued with more attributions and competence, and Legislative had the peculiar professional represents. Differently from First Republic, Union increased power and municipalities had slightly good situation. Certainly, a foremost difference was the representative system that include more people and improve with Electoral Justice Constitution of 1937 After Constitution of 1934, National Congress elected Getulio Vargas as president and the next election would occur in The candidates and whole country were preparing for election; however, using a supposed communist treat to Brazil, Vargas planed a coup and dictatorship since 1936 with some politicians, and seventeen of twenty states supported unanimously the coup. Thus, in November of 1937 Vargas presented the new Constitution of the civilian Dictatorship, as known as Estado Novo. The population approved Vargas` government because for the first time they received social rights, although political and civilian rights not took place in that moment, which marked the Brazilian citizenship (Carvalho, 2009). a) Power organization In this period, Vargas wanted build a strong central government and social welfare state for urban workers (Skidmore, 2009). The Executive Power concentred most powers 11

12 and competences such as borders of national territory, defence, armed forces, police, security of borders, national education, federal finances, all forms of communications, all transportation, and others. The Legislative Power was exercised by National Parliament with collaboration of National Economy Council, and the parliament continued bicameral but the Constitution change their names, Deputy Chamber and Federal Council. Although the Constitution established how relations with three powers would be, it also gave to president the right to close parliament and Vargas did close. In fact, the president was supreme authority which power to indicate the next candidate to presidency, close Deputy Camber, pointed members of National Council, not convoked the parliament, and also could declare emergency state which permitted censorship, interruption of gather right and government could search in particular domicile. b) Federalism In the Constitution the federative form continued; nonetheless, in the practice Union concentrated all powers and states and municipalities lost revenue and attributions. In each state was implemented a system of interventorias, basically, all municipalities were controlled by an interventor and each state was controlled by Vargas. In addition, states that for three years did not collected sufficient tax for its public services could transformed in federal territories. c) Representative system National Congress was closed and Estado Novo was the only period in Brazilian history when no elections happened. In the states, Vargas pointed interventor, which was a non-elected governor, and in each municipality the interventor pointed a major Constitution of 1946 The civilian dictatorship ended in 1945, due to many reasons, for instance, Brazilian contradiction in the World War II that was defending Democracy with the Allies against the Axis at the same time that had a dictator ruling country (SKIDMORE, 2010) -, Vargas was removed from the presidency by a military coup. Finally, the democratization in 1945 brought others institutional changes. Democracy of 1945 to 1964 was an unsteady period that only two presidents achieved to finish their mandate; general Eurico G. Dutra was elected in the first honest election of 1945 and completed his mandate; in 1950 Vargas was elected and a complex situation culminated with his suicide in 1954; to next period Juscelino Kubitschek was elected and skilfully he completed his mandate; the next president elect was Janio Quadros that resigned in 1960 and left a big problem because the 12

13 vice-president elected was Joao Gourlart, former minister of Vargas and was not approved by the military. The hardly situation ended with the Military coup and end of Democracy in a) Power organization In contrast with Dictatorship of 1937, democrat Constitution of 1946 established more power to Legislative that continue bicameral, namely Deputy Camber and Senate, each state minimally had seven deputies and territories only one. Even though Executive continued had strongly competences, Legislative gained attributions and could limit president actions. In fact, between 1945 and 1964, Legislative and Executive Powers were struggled frequently. Given the international moment of Cold War and a Brazilian fear of Communism this Constitution allowed many controversial points, for example, many possibilities of federal intervention in states. Another interesting concern is re-election, perhaps because deputies and senator had fear for a possible return of Vargas, which happened. b) Federalism Brazil remained a Federation, named United States of Brazil since 1891, then with Constitution of 1946 sought a more equilibrate federalism. States, territories and Federal District that was federal capital formed the Union. Its attributions and competences were more distributed, but states and municipalities gained others also. To municipalities was attributed a revenue and was established when states could intervened in their cities; however, Constitution also determined that municipalities had assistance by states, in practice means a possibility of autonomy limitation. c) Representative system Finally, elections returned in Brazil in the three levels. All men and women were obligated to vote; however, illiteracy, homeless, who did not speak Portuguese (excluding the native inhabitants, as many different ethnics did not spoke the national language), and lower militaries. Municipalities could elect their councilman and mayor; nonetheless, Constitution allowed governors to appoint the capital s mayors, the same situation in some cities declared exceptional national importance to security by National Security Council. Other important characteristic, for the first-time Brazil had national parties as well the election was competitive; although Communist Party was considered illegal. Essentially, democratic background was improved. Executive Power continued strongly, but Legislative could restrict the Executive. The Union divided its attributions and 13

14 competences with states and municipalities in a more equilibrated federalism. Furthermore, the return of elections and competition made representative system feasible Constitution of 1967 In 1964, the Military coup change rules once again. Differently from others Latin American military dictatorships, Brazilian officers had a strong legalist streak and they wanted legitimacy (SKIDMORE, 1999, p.160). This concern could be seen in the Constitution of dictatorship, in which the differences are slight from others four; in fact, Military Regime introduced authoritarian mechanism through seventeenth Institutional Acts (IA) and Constitution of 67 legally confirmed the fourth IA. The period and Constitution are controversial, although undoubtedly was an authoritarian regime; because of the legal concern by militaries, Military Regime claim legally being a Democracy. a) Power organization The first peculiar fact about Military Regime is that Legislative Power did not was closed in whole period. However, military constrained the opposition, especially when candidates supported by government did not win. For example, the senador biônico or bionic senators, were indirectly elected by an electoral council, it was way that military ensured to have majority on Senate. The attributions of Legislative Power slightly differ from 1946; the foremost difference is about Executive, president was indirectly elected. Although article 6 states that Legislative, Executive and Judiciary power were independent, Executive power subdued Legislative and established constraints to his autonomy. b) Federalism Brazil continued be a Federation in the Constitution; however, Union increased considerably its attributions and competences. Article 8 about competence of Union is extremely big 3, and the states attributions most seem like restrictions than rights. In the same situation, municipalities lost revenue and competences. c) Representative system Constitution of 1967 did not change the obligation of vote and who could vote. An immense modification is the president was indirectly elected for a council formed by National Congress and for deputies pointed by states Assemblies with confirmation of governors. Furthermore, elections happened in Executive and Legislative in all three levels, municipal, federal, and in sometimes state level. 3 The article have seventeenth section by which the VII [a to d], the XV [a to d], and the XVII [a to v] and 1 and 2 ). 14

15 Constitution of 1967 did not alter electoral rules, however, the institutional acts I, II, III, and others amendments to Constitution made. The military coup was in 31th March and in April the first Institutional Act established indirect election to presidency, suspension of Constitution of 1946, and suspended political rights of individual considered threat by the military 4. In 1965 election to governors occurred and the military were concerned because in five states the opposition attached to ex president João Goulart won, as result, in the same year, the IA - II abolished all parties and established only two parties: National Renewal Alliance, to support from government; and Brazilian Democratic Movement, opposition to military rule. Moreover, president could intervene on states and close National Congress without authorization from any judicial or political body. In 1966, IA- III allowed indirectly elections to governors and they appointed the major from states capitals. However, National Congress were directly elected. In summarize, Military Regime ( ) was a difficult period with many limitations to civilian and political rights. Although the Constitution apparently seems like others, seventeenth institutional acts imposed many restrictions to Brazilians. Executive restricted Legislative; Union increased power over states and municipalities; finally, even though elections happened, they were not competitive and opposition was constrained Brazilian Constitutions It is worth highlight the Legislative Power in Brazil, even though since Colonization councilman were elected, was continually subjugated by Executive. Once during seventyseven years of Monarchy, imperator interfered on states and Legislative. In the First Republic, Legislative was absolutely subdue by Executive whom controlled elections to Chamber of Deputies and Senate. Like Constitution of 1981, by Constitution of 1934 Legislative needed of sanction of president; differently, in 1934 Legislative was exercised by Chamber of Deputies with collaboration of Senate, another difference was the professional representation that only occurred in this period. This Constitution also had improvement of Electoral and Labour Justice, since election were not competence of private power, coroneis; and population had social rights. Posteriorly, in 1937 the most restrict period when Legislative was closed. With democratization Legislative gained competences and possibility of exercise veto player on Executive, which results in struggle between powers. With coup of 1964, Executive continued elect by population; however, opposition and 4 4 Hundred two names was considered threat national stability: ex- presidents João Goulart, Jânio Quadros. The leader of Communist party, Luís Carlos Prestes, and two social scientist Celso Furtado e Darcy Ribeiro. 15

16 government candidates did not competed in the same situation. Military government created a sort of limitations in order to controlled political system. The whole institutional changes in power organization can be seen in table 1. Table 1- Executive, Legislative, Judiciary Power Organization Law -Powers independent -Legislative -National Congress: Deputy -National Parliament: Deputy Council - Executive with attributions, but Legislative could - Executive restricted Legislative needed sanction of President Council aided by Senate - Judiciary: Labour and Electoral Justice and National Council restrained Executive. Struggle between two Powers Sum mari ze Legislative subdue Legislativ e subdue Executive strong, Legislative closed More equilibrium between Legislative and Executive Legislative subdue Source: author As regards federalism form, although the five Constitutions claimed being Federalist, the practice was different. During First Republic federalism was heavily unbalanced in which some states had more power than Union. The constitution of 1934 made by two conflicting forces, as result, federalist form continued; however, Union gained many competences and municipalities situation improved with their own revenue and possibility of election. By authoritarian Constitution of 1937, federalism form was maintained, nevertheless, in practice federalism was abolished (Abrucio, 1998) due to the fact of local forces were understood as dangerous to Nation. For exemplify, Vargas publicly burned states flags to show that only National interests matters. With democratization, more balance federalism when states and municipalities had more 16

17 autonomy. According to Leal (1975), two moments municipalities had more autonomy with revenue and election of their represents, in 1934 and 1946; nonetheless, always states could interfere and reduced their powers. By Constitution of 1967, once again a dictatorship established great power to Union and limited state and municipalities competences and rights, as it can see in table 2. Table 2- Federalism: Union, States and Municipalities Law Federative form Federative form Federative form Federative form Federative form Summarize Disequilibrium State had less No federalism Equilibrated Union more Federalism power, Union Federalism power, States had and autonomy more power municipalities gained competences restricted Source: author The Brazilian representative system in 20th century was a history of increasingly popular participation, by Constitution of 1891 only 5,7% of population could vote (Love, 1982). In whole century only by Constitution of 1937 gave a legal possibility to elections not occur; in the other periods elections happened, more open during 1934 and 1946, and more restricted in First Republic and Military Dictatorship. The two authoritarian governments of 1937 and 1967 imputed restrictions for states; for example, since 1965 with IA-II governors was indirectly elect. Only with democratic Constitution of 1988 women, men, and illiterate could vote. As can see in table 3. Table 3- Representative system Law Same of -Men and No - Men and -Men and women Saraiva women who elections women are are obligated to Law of had job were obligated to vote 1881 obligated to vote - Only two vote - National parties allowed -secret vote parties - President and 17

18 - governors Competitive indirectly elected elections - Lots of constraint to position Summarize Majority More open, Whole More open, - Elections exclude but majority population but a happened with exclude exclude significant lot limitations because part was - Illiteracy and illiteracy did exclude who not speak not vote because Portuguese did illiteracy and not vote who not speak Portuguese did not vote Source: author Considering the institutional change in those formal rules expose, our hypothesis is that Brazilian institutional change occurred by displacement is confirm. According to Mahoney and Thelen (2009), displacement is a type of institutional change that occur when completely removal of rules for new ones. Institutional change by Revolutions that was rapid change according to Skopcol (2009), it is not regularly in Brazil because that change happened in political and social system, and social problems like concentration of land never had modification. In fact, Brazilian institutional change could be understand as displacement in all Constitutions, and within periods occurred conversion, that is a capacity of individual explore institutional contradiction s; and layering, which is when little changes accumulated and provoked a massive modification. An example of layering was after Military coup, the institutional acts were amendments that change whole Constitution of 1946 until new one established. The other forms of institutional change, drift (Mayhoney and Thelen, 2009) and according to Levi (1991), involves civil society acting and in a country with strongly protagonist of State is difficult find in the periodization exposed. 5. Conclusions 18

19 Although more than forty years of decentralization by Constitution of 1891, in 20th century Brazil had centralization trend, especially after Vargas Era ( ) and confirmed by Military Dictatorship ( ). Federalism was extreme in the First Republic, did not exist in the two dictatorship when Union controlled states and municipalities; and it was more equilibrate in and when states and municipalities could elected their represents and had their own revenue. An Executive Power with more competences and conducing Legislative Power was the pattern in whole periodization, First Republic, Vargas Era, Democracy and Military Regime. The difference occurred in and , when Legislative had more attributions and veto player, especially in With a strongly Executive Power, Brazil often had a personal politics made by a charismatic president, such as Vargas known as father of poor, Juscelino Kubitschek and Joao Goulart. Another characteristics were restriction of opposition, in others words, candidates supported by currently government had better condition than opposition candidates. Although all candidates suffered with this government politics, particularly the left wing was restrict, for example, for long time in this periodization Communist Party was considered illegal. The fear of left always caused restrictions and support to dictatorships in 1937 and However, strong Executive, Union with more competence and restriction of opposition were not only exclusive of Military Regime, in fact, it was constantly utilized in the First Republic, Dictatorship of Vargas and even used in Democracy of References Abrucio, Fernando L. (1998): Os barões da federação: os governadores e a redemocratização brasileira. São Paulo: HUCITEC Publisher.. Campello de Souza, Maria do C. (1990): Estado e Partidos Políticos no Brasil ( ). São Paulo: Alfa-Omega Publisher. Cardoso, Fernando H. (2006): Dos governos militares a Prudente - Campos Sales, in Fausto, Boris (eds.) História geral da civilização brasileira. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Bertrand Brasil. pp Carvalho, Jose Murilo. (2009): Cidadania no Brasil: O Longo Caminho. Rio de Janeiro: Editora Civilização Brasileira. Codato, Adriano N. (2011): A transformação do universo das elites no Brasil pós-1930: uma crítica sociológica, in Flávio Heinz (eds.) História Social de Elites. São Leopoldo-RS: Oikos Publisher. pp Crouch, Colin. (2005): Capitalist diversity and change: recombinant governance and institutional entrepreneurs. Oxford: Oxford University Press. 19

20 Faoro, Raymundo. (2008): Os Donos do Poder: Formação do Patronato Político Brasileiro. São Paulo: Globo Publisher. Fernandes, Antonio. (2002): Path dependency e os Estudos Históricos Comparados, BIB NR. (53): pp Fernandes, Florestan. (1976): A Revolução Burguesa no Brasil. Rio de Janeiro: Zahar Editores. Freyre, Gilberto. (1933): Casa-Grande & Senzala. Brasília: Univertity of Brasília Press. Hall, Peter A. and Taylor, Rosemary C. (2003): As três versões do neo-institucionalismo, Lua Nova NR. (58): pp Heinz, Flávio. (2011): História Social de Elites. São Leopoldo-RS: Oikos Publisher. Hollanda, Sérgio B. (1936): Raízes do Brasil. São Paulo: Companhia das Letras Publisher.. Leal, Victor Nunes. (1975): Coronelismo, Enxada e Voto: o município e o regime representativo no Brasil. São Paulo: Alfa-Omega Publisher. Leal, Victor Nunes. (1977): Coronelismo: the municipality and representative government in Brazil. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Levi, Margaret. (1991): Uma lógica da mudança institucional, Dados NR. (34): pp Love, Joseph. (1982): A Locomotiva. São Paulo na Federação Brasileira São Paulo: Editora Paz e Terra S.A. Marenco, André. (2008): Estudos de Elites Políticas Explicam com o Instituições Tornam -se Instituições?, BIB NR. (65): pp Mahoney, James and Thelen, Katheleen. (2009): Explaining Institutional Change. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. North, Douglas. (2011): Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Pierson, Paul and Skopcol, Theda. (2002): Historical Institutionalism in Contemporary Political Science, in: Katznelson, Ira and Milner, Helen V. (eds) Political Science: State of the Discipline. New York: W.W. Norton. pp Sartori, Giovani. (1981): A política: lógica e método nas ciências sociais. Brasília: Univertity of Brasília Press. (Political Thought Colection, 36). Skidmore, Thomas. (2009): Brazil: five centuries of change. New York; Oxford: Oxford University Press. Skocpol, Theda. (1979): States and social revolutions: a comparative analysis of France, Russia and China. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Steinmo, Sven. (2008): What is Historical Institucionalism?, in: Della Porta, Donatella & Keating, Michael (eds.) Approaches and Methodologies in the Social Sciences. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Tilly, Charles. (1992): Coercion, Capital and European States, A.D Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. 20