Impeachment
Oimpeachment is commonly understood as a resource provided for in presidential democratic political systems that has the purpose of remove from office representatives of the Executive Power and/or appointed by members of that power. These representatives include mayors of municipalities, state governors, Supreme Court ministers (in some specific cases, other profiles of ministers and heads of the armed forces) and, of course, the president of the Republic.
Parliamentary origin of impeachment
The problem is that this current impression we have of the resource impeachment it's pretty recent. O impeachment, although nowadays it is mainly used in regimespresidentialists, originated in medieval England, at the time when the parliamentary system that country was consolidating. The impeachment was developed at the turn of the 13th to the 14th century and was used as a process, both political and criminal, against the head of the ministerial cabinet, or Prime Minister, of a certain reign.
The process was judged by the English parliament and, if approved by the majority, the target of the process was removed from office. If there were any charges of common crime, he was also convicted in the process of impeachment and received the sentences (such as imprisonment) from the parliamentarians themselves. This feature was used by the English with some regularity until the mid-17th century. A famous case of when the impeachment prevailed in England was that of the philosopher Francis Bacon, who was the king's high adviser (lord chancellor) and was impeached for being accused of corruption.
Of impeachment to the "motion of no confidence"
The resource of impeachment fell out of favor in England after the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which laid the foundations of the modern monarchyparliamentarian in England. With the institution of this political model, there was a division of functions of the Executive Power between head of government and head of state. Instead of impeachment, started to use another device, the "motion (or declaration) of no confidence”. This motion consists of a representation drawn up by some members of Parliament that is accompanied by formal charges against the prime minister. This representation is voted on by parliamentarians and, if there is a majority of the votes, the prime minister is removed from office.
The no-confidence motion process is much simpler than the impeachment, as the prime minister does not have the same representative weight as the president (in a presidential regiment).
Differences between parliamentarism and presidentialism
In the case of England and other countries that followed the model of the parliamentary monarchy, the head of state it's the King, whose rank is for life and hereditary. In this system, the king has one more symbolic function, in addition to acting diplomatically and having to give the real endorsement for institutions, how to enact laws recommended by parliament, among others stuff. In the case of a republicparliamentarian, the head of state is the president, which is usually elected by parliament. The president assumes functions such as military command and diplomacy.
Do not stop now... There's more after the advertising ;)
However, in the case of the two forms of parliamentarism, both monarchical and republican, the head of government it's the Prime Minister (who can receive other titles, such as chancellor, prime minister, etc.). The prime minister is the head of the parliamentary cabinet and is responsible for the proper administrative conduct and politics of the nation, that is, the prime minister governs, but he is not the symbolic representative of one of the powers constituted. This representative, in parliamentarism, is either the king or the president.
At the systempresidentialist, whose first successful model was that of the United States of America, adopted after the Independence, in 1776, there is no division of functions of parliamentarism. The president, in this system, is at the same time head of state and head of government. Your powers are greater. In addition to effectively governing and administering, the president is also free to form his ministry or secretariat and directly influence the Parliament (building an allied base) and the Judiciary (appointing judges).
In presidentialism, the impeachment it's an unavoidable condition
Americans, as has been said, have developed an effective presidential model. But as they were heirs to the English political tradition, they ended up incorporating some resources. One of them was the impeachment, that is, while impeachment fell into disuse in England, it gained strength in the US and, later, in others countries that adopted the republican model inspired by the American model, as was the case of Brazil from gives Republican Constitution of 1891.
As we have pointed out, presidentialism delegates more power to the figure of the president, given that he is head of government and state at the same time. Thus, contrary to what happens in parliamentarism, the removal of the president is more complicated, because, with him, an assembled political-administrative structure collapses. In presidentialism, the resource ofimpeachment it is an unavoidable condition, because it requires a time-consuming and more detailed process than the “no-confidence motion”. Therefore, it tends to be politically more traumatic for the nation.
By Me. Cláudio Fernandes
