In the current political landscape, it seems that every relevant debate in the National Congress ends up being packaged as a Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC). But is this always the necessary legal tool, or are we facing a grand political theater? In our most recent video, we discuss the "original flaw" in certain agendas that, although they could be resolved through ordinary bills, are elevated to the status of PEC to serve purposes that go beyond legislation.
The Left's Show and the Right's Capitulation
The central point of the analysis is how the choice of PEC serves as a showcase. For left-wing parliamentarians, the more complex procedure and the gravity of a constitutional change offer the perfect stage for personal and ideological promotion. It's the necessary "little show" to mobilize their base and set the public opinion agenda with issues that are dear to them.
On the other hand, we observe a curious and worrying phenomenon: the capitulation of sectors of the right, specifically Bolsonarism. The video highlights that, to avoid popular rejection or immediate wear and tear, parliamentarians who claim to be in opposition end up voting with the left on controversial issues—as happened with the "Misogyny Bill." This stance generates a clear contradiction: while they surrender in the vote, they continue to use the label of "communist" to attack anyone who dares to criticize former President Bolsonaro independently.
The Politics of Fear of Losing Votes
The criticism extends to the stance of figures like Flávio Bolsonaro, who, according to the analysis, avoids direct debate and prefers not to detail proposals so as not to "lose votes." When politics becomes merely a game of maintaining popularity, the technical content and viability of projects take a back seat.
The use of the PEC (Proposed Constitutional Amendment), in this context, is pointed out as a political "scam." If the objective were legislative efficiency, other paths would be taken. Since the goal is to generate noise and ensure electoral survival, the chosen path is the one that generates the most engagement, even if it means compromising the integrity of the constitutional debate.
Conclusion
We cannot accept that our Constitution be used as an instrument of political marketing. It is necessary to question: why does this issue need to be a Constitutional Amendment Proposal (PEC)? Who benefits from prolonging this discussion? The role of the voter is to see beyond the smokescreen and demand coherence from their representatives, so that politics ceases to be a spectacle of convenience and returns to being a space for real solutions for the country.