About two months before the election, the Brazilian Congress should hold hearings on the risk of a coup against democracy, as a way of assessing threats to the election, suggests US congressman Jamie Raskin.
“The best antidote to a coup is to lay out the plans in advance, so everyone knows what’s being considered,” the Democrat told reporters. Sheet. He is a member of the US House committee investigating how former President Donald Trump and allies tried to reverse the 2020 election defeat.
The culmination of this effort was the invasion of Congress on January 6, 2021, when a mob tried to force US lawmakers not to recognize Joe Biden’s victory. The special committee, which has been broadcasting the hearings live, sometimes on prime-time TV, is expected to finish work by the end of September. In addition to the results of the investigations, which could pave the way for Trump to be punished, deputies must make a series of recommendations to prevent further attacks.
This week, a delegation of 19 entities went to Washington to discuss with American officials the risks to democracy in Brazil. The group met with Raskin this Friday (29). He previously held meetings at the State Department with Senator Bernie Sanders and other lawmakers.
How do you see the current situation of democracy in Brazil? Autocrats, dictators and tyrants are advancing all over the world. And they are targeting elections, to destabilize and subvert them. This is what we experience in the United States. So, given this pattern of attacks on democratic institutions, the people, the good people of Brazil, should certainly be on guard.
Do you have any suggestions on what Brazilian institutions can do to protect democracy almost two months before the presidential elections? The Brazilian Congress should hold a hearing on threats to elections and democracy around the world, and then focus on potential threats in Brazil. And there should be debates about what precautionary measures could be taken.
How to contain attacks on the electoral system when they are made by presidents? In the American case, Trump’s rhetorical attacks on elections and institutions were a harbinger of the attempt to break out of the constitutional order and reverse the election. Most people think of a coup as an attack by the military against the president, but there is also a self-coup: a president who faces the prospect of electoral defeat decides to attack the constitutional order and take the presidency by force. In hindsight, there are many things we could have done in the US to prepare against this. And the best antidote to a scam is to lay out plans in advance, so everyone knows what’s being considered.
Do you think the committee’s work could lead to Trump being held accountable for what happened on January 6th? The critical point is to reveal the truth. The Special Committee is in the process of telling America the truth. In a democracy, people have a right to know what is going on with their own government. There may be individual criminal liability via the Department of Justice. And the best response to Donald Trump and Trumpism will be to strengthen our democratic institutions against coups, insurrections, political violence and efforts to usurp the popular will.
What will be the committee’s next steps? Is there a deadline for completing the work? There is a general feeling that we need to finish our work by the end of September. We hope to complete all the different lines of investigation. And we will also develop a series of recommendations on what can be done to strengthen our democratic institutions for the future.
What will be the recommendations? There are a few methods to strengthen our electoral college model, assuming we keep it. It is an outdated institution, obsolete and vulnerable to attack. There are a few things we can do to ensure that no vice president or governor tries to thwart the popular will. But it would be better if we just replaced the Electoral College with a national popular vote system for president. It’s what most Americans would like to see.
We spend millions of dollars a year exporting American democracy to other countries. But one thing no one has decided to import is the Electoral College system. Nobody says “oh, that’s a great idea, we’re not going to give the presidency to the person who won the most votes, we’re going to give it to someone who is able to win in more jurisdictions, to get the Electoral College votes.” This nullifies the idea of ​​one person, one vote. It’s a problem we need to face. We must protect the right to vote and elections against subversion by partisan actors in strategic positions.
In the coming months, the Supreme Court will consider cases related to the power of states to organize elections and, depending on the decision, local authorities will have even more power to intervene in presidential elections. Would that bring more risks to American democracy? Yup. The history of the GOP is that they try to inflate the powers of the offices they hold beyond what is recognized by law. In 2020, they tried to inflate the Vice President’s powers beyond legal limits to get Mike Pence to declare Donald Trump a victim. [de fraude eleitoral]. Likewise, they control majorities in state legislatures. So they are now trying to dramatically inflate the power of legislators to say that states have full control over the electoral system.
A good part of the strategies of disinformation and use of fake news to undermine the credibility of the elections uses social networks. Will the committee make recommendations on how big tech can act to protect democracy? We are now in the process of developing these recommendations, but we definitely believe that online propaganda and disinformation are a serious threat to the integrity of democratic institutions. So be mindful of that.
X-ray
Jamie Raskin, 59
Democrat, the US congressman since 2017 represents the state of Maryland and is part of the Special Committee investigating January 6th. Previously, he was a state senator for three terms. He holds a law degree from Harvard, was a professor of constitutional law for 25 years, and has written books on the Supreme Court.
