Search results

Brazilian federalism was important in the political game of combating the pandemic for three reasons. First, Brazil's public health system depends heavily on intergovernmental relations between Union, states, and municipalities because there is a policy portfolio based on federative cooperation. Second, the subnational governments' autonomy to act against COVID-19 was constantly questioned by the Federal Government – the conflict between the President and governors was a key piece in all health policy. Finally, states and local governments were primarily responsible for policies to fight against pandemic, but the absence and/or wrong measures taken by the Federal Government (such as the delay in purchasing vaccines) generated intergovernmental incoordination, increased territorial inequality, and reduced the effectiveness of subnational public policies, especially those linked to social isolation. In this context, Brazilian federalism played a dual role in the pandemic. On the one hand, the federative structure partially succeeded in averting an even worse scenario, mitigating the impact of mistaken presidential decisions. The role of subnational governments, especially of the states, was critical as a counterweight to federal decisions. On the other hand, the President actively acted against governors and mayors and, above all, sought to weaken intergovernmental articulations within the Unified Health System (SUS), the federative model designed three decades ago. One could say that the federative actors, such as the Supreme Court (Supremo Tribunal Federal – STF) and subnational governments, were the main obstacles for the Bolsonarist antiscientific agenda. The success of this reaction to President Bolsonaro's negationist populism was partial, but the results of the fight against COVID-19 would have been much worse without these federalist barriers.

The CoViD-19 pandemic has brought about a panoply of institutional challenges both domestically and in the international arena. Classical constitutional theory thereby underwent a reinvention by the executive for the sake of speedy policy action and to the detriment of institutional control while favouring authoritarian forms of governance. This paper concerns itself with institutional responses to such developments, placing emphasis on the role of the judiciary and people*s in contesting emergency decrees and other executive orders, especially where fundamental rights are infringed upon. The paper aims to explore the difficulties arising with exerting absolute executive powers during the health crisis, the respective role assumed by constitutional courts and the impact of the new governance paradigm on forms of public contestation, also as a means of quasi institutional control.

Indeed, the right to health may be translated into political discourse and become foundational to security and public interest paradigms. This may result in a shrinking public space given the constraints to the freedom of movement. In the name of public safety, the (collective) right to assembly, expression and protest have been submitted to major limitations in that regard.

Ultimately, this re-opens debates on the meaning of absolute rights and contextualities of derogations, as well as the reconcilability of civil and political rights and economic, social and cultural rights. It also exposes social inequalities, social justice dimensions and vulnerabilities, often exacerbated by the health crisis; migrant rights demonstrably face particularly severe and intersectional forms of violations.

Particular values lie with the interdisciplinary approach embraced in this paper; the authors draw on a variety of social sciences disciplines to shed light on this very current issue. Both theoretical and empirical methods are used and combined here, making sense of the underlying logic of virus governance and its impacts on fundamental rights.