Orçamento público democrático

Abstract

This thesis conceives public budgeting in light of contemporary democratic constitutionalism. It links transformations in the Brazilian budget to the democratic crisis. It analyzes philosophical, historical, and current paradigms; argues that integrity, transparency, and equality are essential to budgeting; and connects these principles to rights, procedures, and control. It concludes that the public budget is: substantive (post-positivism), demands votes and justification (discursive argumentation), is bound to the effectiveness and balancing of rights (normative), and transcends the government vs. parliament dichotomy (constitutional jurisdiction and public opinion). Since 2015, parliamentary powers have expanded: an imposing regime, increased budgetary allocations, and reduced control of amendments. The impacts on coalition presidentialism and on control mechanisms have led to constitutional lawsuits. Regarding values, integrity is nonpartisan and essential for political trust and free elections. It is divided into: integrity as a norm (constitutional project and legitimized advantage); political coherence (majority, proportional, and participatory commitments); and governance (fiscal discipline, allocative and technical efficiency). Transparency is the basis for deliberation and control, yet opacity is chronic. It is broken down into procedural (visibility of information: available, accessible, and reliable) and substantive (inferability of information regarding justification/results and friendly communication). Equality is a civilizational achievement and a matter of distributive justice. It is twofold: equality in social and economic relations (fiscal and social balance; the minimum moral standard of dignity and human development) and equality in relation to power (balancing prerogatives of initiative, deliberation, and execution between the Legislative and Executive branches, and social participation). A democratic public budget contains rights to: universalizable allocative decision; the inviolability of constitutional clauses; being considered as a hard case; execution of the majority project; proportional influence; a fair political process; rational, programmatic, and monitored planning; transparency; the minimum moral standard of equality; effectiveness in human development; and participation. The suggested procedures include: provision of actors, procedures, and justifications; methodologies to ensure sound decision-making and responsiveness (allocation, authorship, deliberation, and traceability). In regard to controls, the thesis diagnoses: rearranging parliamentary expenditure allocation, asymmetries in local control, difficulties in networked action, and the emergence of new illicit practices. The Brazilian Supreme Court (STF) must face challenges to solve: the opacity of deliberations, the vacuum in parliamentary responsiveness, and the stabilization of budget amendments. Public budgeting is both a political and a normative process – produced by various actors and powers – through public deliberation, votes, and justifications, which must adhere to the Constitution and the real-life outcomes it generates. It is an institution of redistributive justice aimed at materializing democratically represented worldviews and constitutional rights proportionally and in accordance with evidence-based programs. The research was qualitative, grounded in political and legal science (methods: deductive and dialectical).