Politics of the Empire of Brazil took place in a framework of a quasi-federal to unitary parliamentary representative democratic monarchy, whereby the Emperor of Brazil was the head of state and nominally head of government although the Prime Minister, called President of the Council of Ministers, was effectively the de facto head of government, and of a multi-party system. Executive power was exercised by the government. Legislative power was vested in both the government and the two chambers of the General Assembly (or Parliament). The Judiciary was independent of the Executive and the Legislative. There was also a fourth power, the Moderating power, exercised by the emperor. The Empire of Brazil was divided into 20 provinces and the Neutral Municipality, capital of the country.
State structure Monarchy
Upon gaining independence from Portugal in 1822, the Brazilian nation as a whole was almost entirely in favor of a monarchical form of government.Holanda, p.403: "... o que sabemos é que a idéia republicana no percurso da independência, pelo menos depois de 1821, foi um devaneio de poucos." There were a variety of reasons for this political choice. There was fear among various social groups of the possibility that Brazil would fall into the same political, social, and economic chaos experienced by most of the former Spanish American colonies: territorial dismemberment, coups, dictatorships and the rise of caudillos. The perceived necessity was for a political structure that would allow the Brazilian people not merely to enjoy the advantages of liberty, but also that would guarantee the country's stability, in conformance with the liberalism of the time. Only a neutral entity, completely independent of parties, groups or opposing ideologies, could achieve this end. And there was "always a powerful ideological element remaining from independence as the result of a great national union over particular interests."Salles (1996), p. 55: “sempre um poderoso elemento ideológico remanescente da independência como fruto de uma grande união nacional acima dos diversos interesses particulares.” The Brazilian monarchy was "a form of government that assured a Brazil that would include the whole of the old Portuguese dominion, in a climate of order, peace, and freedom."Sousa, p. 126–127: “forma de governo que assegurou ao Brasil a integridade territorial do antigo domínio lusitano, num clima de ordem, de paz e de liberdade.”
There was also another reason for adoption of the monarchy, or more precisely, its maintenance. The Europeans, as much as the Africans and the Native Americans, came from monarchical societies. To remain under this form of government was a way of maintaining the traditions and identity of the Brazilian people, a people descended from those three distinct ethnic groups. The choice of a member of the House of Braganza came not just from the historical moment, but also from the fact that Prince Pedro descended from the pure male line of the Portuguese kings. The House of Braganza originated with Afonso, 1st Duke of Braganza, an illegitimate son of John I of the House of Aviz who, in turn, was the son of Peter I of the House of Burgundy, which was founded 300 years earlier in 1143 by Afonso Henriques, the first king of Portugal. Thus, the strong popular appeal of the monarchy, and a tradition of more than three hundred years (or seven hundred if Portuguese history is considered), enabled Prince Pedro to take on the role of a symbol of national unity.Carvalho (1993), p.19 The monarchical regime maintained on Brazilian soil "was a force of continuity and tradition".Sousa, p. 128: “foi uma força de continuidade e tradição”
A third element in the choice of monarchy was the necessity to comply with the powers of the era, all located in Europe. The possibility of European countries seeking to dominate the young nation, strengthened the desire to prevent the adoption of the republican form at all costs and to avoid any territorial dismemberment into small republics, weak and in constant rivalry with one another. Given that other Latin American countries and also Portugal were becoming easy prey to European (mainly British) greed, maintaining the monarchy with a monarch of European origin acted as a deterrent and allowed Brazil to ensure the predominance of its international interests. And in fact, "after the phase of the regency, turbulent but transitory by its very nature, the imperial order dominated from above, assuring internal peace and external prestige."Sousa, p. 314: “após a fase da regência, turbulenta mas transitória pela sua própria natureza, a ordem imperial dominaria sobranceiramente, assegurando a paz interna e o prestígio exterior”
For the reasons cited above, Brazil chose a representative constitutional monarchical system.Sodré, p.90 The imperial regime was based on the idea that sovereignty resided in the Nation, not the State, symbolically represented by the emperor. While the Nation wished to experience freedom and prosperity, the State, in turn, wanted "permanence, duration and existence."Torres, p. 71: “permanência, de duração e de existência” In this form, the Constitution expressed in its text that both the Emperor and the General Assembly were representatives of the Brazilian nation. The monarch represented the constant, general interests of the nation as a whole, while the Assembly represented particular, ephemeral, momentary interests. However, the Emperor was not sovereign of the country; the sovereign was the Brazilian Nation, who delegated this role to the Emperor, as they did to the General Assembly.Torres, p.72
Parliamentary system A major difference between parliamentarism and presidentialism is that in the first, the Head of State and of the Government are distinct individuals, while in the second, both roles reside in a single individual. Under the Brazilian monarchy, nonetheless, the emperor was head of both the State and the Government. This basic characteristic of presidential republicanism was transplanted by the Brazilian Constitutional Order. The Constitution of 1824 was rather less parliamentary than the draft prepared by the Constituent Assembly. In fact, it was for all purposes a peculiar and unique regime: a presidential monarchy. That did not mean, by any means, that the Brazilian monarch had prerogatives resembling those of a tyrant or dictator. The individual guarantees that guarantee human liberty and dignity were inserted into the articles of the Charter and were respected. The Emperor would not act in areas reserved to the legislative branch and the judiciary, such as to create laws or to judge and sentence. Still, the creation of the Moderating Power () and natural evolution of Brazilian representative system enabled a transition from presidential to the parliamentary model, which "would give the Empire a position of illustrious companion next to the British lion" [the United Kingdom].Holanda, p. 261: “daria ao Império uma posição de ilustre companhia ao lado do leão britânico”.Lima, p. 401: "...in Great Britain and also in Brazil, that from all countries in the Western Civilization its imperial regime was the one most similar to the British parliamentarism". It was unnecessary to modify the letter of the law in order to transmute one system of government into another: the Constitution itself in its elasticity (in terms of legal interpretation of the Charter) enabled this.Bonavides (1978), p.233
The first step in the parliamentary institution occurred in 1824, with the award of the first Brazilian constitutional charter, allowing the General Assembly (Parliament) to take a leading role in policy guidance of the nation.Diégues, p.240 The second step was in 1826 when a minority deputy Bernardo Pereira de Vasconcelos successfully demanded that the ministers of state had to present the government's financial accounts before the Chamber of Deputies.Faoro, p.340 The third step, the most important, was taken in 1847 when Francisco de Paula Souza demanded the creation of the office of the President of the Council of Ministers (equivalent to the prime minister, and holding executive power). These steps resulted in the consolidation of Brazilian parliamentarism, in the same manner as the consolidation of British parliamentarism, as it would facilitate the distinction between Executive Power and Moderating Power.Carvalho (1993), p.33
The Brazilian Parliament became increasingly important, as all the great political decisions took place there, providing occasion for memorable debates. By 1881, it was already a custom of the Ministers of State to present government financial accounts to the Parliament, make annual reports on their activities and attend to answer criticism by the Deputies and Senators. These acts allowed great freedom for parliamentary interplay. This did not pass without observation by foreigners. Surprising, Brazil was criticized for its broad freedom of speech and its "exaggerated parliamentarism" as it was called by the French ambassador Amelot, Count of Chaillou.Carvalho (2007), p. 86 In the view of foreigners, Brazilian parliamentarism was not behind its European equivalents. The Empire was "from its outset a crowned democracy, in which the executive prevailed at first, and the legislative ended up predominating".Lima, p. 451: “desde o seu início uma democracia coroada, em que o executivo começou por prevalecer e o legislativo acabou por predominar”
In the Imperial Parliament there were "solid and competitive parties, an active parliament, a free press, open debate", traditions that the Old Republic did not maintain.Carvalho (1993), p. 65: “partidos sólidos e competitivos, parlamento atuante, imprensa livre, debate aberto” Both the emperor and the ministers of state always sought to act with attention to Parliament, making a sincere effort to improve the country's political system by adopting characteristics inherent in Parliamentarianism.Carvalho (1993), p.38 For example: the definition of the cabinet's governmental program was drafted by the President of the Council of Ministers, and was, in turn, presented by the monarch every year at the opening of the Chamber of Deputies.Carvalho (1993), p.39 Another example was the emergence of the possibility that Parliament, when deemed necessary, would submit a motion of no confidence against the cabinet of ministers. This provided a mode of defense (used at exceptional moments) of the parliamentary minority against the cabinet formed by the majority, were they to act inappropriately.Carvalho (1993), p.39
Federalism