The assignment of vacancies is a powerful tool in political articulations. This theme is current and rethinks the values of a society stated as democratic under the light of the Internal Rules of the Chamber of Deputies and of the Brazilian Constitution.
As an example, it can be mentioned a recent episode when a vacancy from a substitute of the PSC (Christian Social Party) was filled by Bonifacio Andrada, a Deputy affiliated to another Party, the PSDB (Brazilian Social Democracy Party). The vacancy was for the Commission of Constitution and Justice (CCJ) of the Chamber of Deputies.
The parliamentarian was a member of the Commission mentioned above, as an indication from his Party. For political reasons his indication to that collegiate was withdrawn. An alternative for him to continue as a member of that Commission was to articulate with another Party another vacancy. At this point we can ask: is it possible to consider a non-observation of the Party proportion with an effective vacancy assignment from the PSC to a member of the PSDB Party?
Regimentally, the definition of the number of members in each permanent Commission is an important process at the beginning of a legislature, serving as basis for the following 4 years. In this case, the provisions of Article 15, X, must be interpreted together with the provisions of Article 25, caput, with the text from Resolution 34 from 2005.
In this process it is expected the observance of the Principle of the Party Proportionality, that translates the number of members in each Bench. Its foundation, in the light of the Federal Constitution, is to reflect the People’s will, through elections where they choose their candidates. These candidates should be affiliated to a Party.
However, the proportionality previewed establishes that the understanding of this precept will occur as much as possible ((§ 1, article 58 of the CFRFB c / c (§ 1, art 25 of the RICD). This makes it possible to soften the rule and it opens space for the practice of vacancy assignment.
In this sense, the reflection does not go through the literality of the law. The question is of a scenario where space disputes overlap rules of Party proportionality not as a norm, but as a value. It can be said, at risk, that this practice of vacancy assignment stripes the rule. There is a mismatch between rule and politics.
If we consider that constitutionalism is a political movement for the establishment of a Constitution, as a rule that limits and organizes the exercise of political power, one can affirm that the arbitrary assignment of vacancy extrapolates this precept.
The mismatch between rule and politics is real. When the word real is used, it does not mean reality but something impossible to symbolize. After all, it ´s a mismatch that repeats itself. An absence of value by rule and that to some extent is part of our own cultural historical context. A practice that brings consequences ...