Differences between the Institutional Acts and the current legislative process
Posted: Thu Feb 20, 2025 3:46 am
The Institutional Acts, issued during the military regime, represented a rupture with the democratic order, being used as instruments of imposition on Brazilian society.
On the other hand, the current legislative process, although not free from criticism and challenges, is based on democratic principles that aim to guarantee popular participation , control of powers and respect for individual rights.
Institutional Acts differ from the current legislative process in several respects. While the AIs were decrees imposed unilaterally by the military regime, the contemporary legislative process is conducted by democratically elected representatives who draft, debate and approve laws on behalf of the people.
Furthermore, the Institutional Acts often violated uk mobile database individual rights and constitutional guarantees , whereas the current legislative process is based on the protection of these rights and the transparency of democratic institutions.
Below are some of the main differences between the Institutional Acts and the current legislative process:
Origin and legitimacy
During the military regime, Institutional Acts were decreed by the military government, without the participation of the National Congress or any democratic body. These decrees were used as instruments to consolidate the power of the military and impose authoritarian measures on the country.
The current legislative process is conducted by the National Congress, composed of the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate. Laws are drafted, debated and approved by representatives democratically elected by the people, following the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law.
Explanatory table on processes existing in the democratic system and non-existent in the military regime
Origin and legitimacy
Popular participation
During the period of the Institutional Acts, popular participation was practically non-existent. The decrees were imposed from the top down, without any consultation or participation from civil society or citizens. They represented an authoritarian imposition of the military regime over the population.
On the other hand, the current legislative process, although not free from criticism and challenges, is based on democratic principles that aim to guarantee popular participation , control of powers and respect for individual rights.
Institutional Acts differ from the current legislative process in several respects. While the AIs were decrees imposed unilaterally by the military regime, the contemporary legislative process is conducted by democratically elected representatives who draft, debate and approve laws on behalf of the people.
Furthermore, the Institutional Acts often violated uk mobile database individual rights and constitutional guarantees , whereas the current legislative process is based on the protection of these rights and the transparency of democratic institutions.
Below are some of the main differences between the Institutional Acts and the current legislative process:
Origin and legitimacy
During the military regime, Institutional Acts were decreed by the military government, without the participation of the National Congress or any democratic body. These decrees were used as instruments to consolidate the power of the military and impose authoritarian measures on the country.
The current legislative process is conducted by the National Congress, composed of the Chamber of Deputies and the Federal Senate. Laws are drafted, debated and approved by representatives democratically elected by the people, following the principles of separation of powers and the rule of law.
Explanatory table on processes existing in the democratic system and non-existent in the military regime
Origin and legitimacy
Popular participation
During the period of the Institutional Acts, popular participation was practically non-existent. The decrees were imposed from the top down, without any consultation or participation from civil society or citizens. They represented an authoritarian imposition of the military regime over the population.