Critics of the Attorney General’s Office’s triple list have called on Lula to ignore it. That the President chooses without considering the three candidates for their careers in an ANPR (National Association of Public Prosecutors) election.
Some of these critics defend the appointment of a clone of Augusto Aras. An agent in the service of politics. Preferably with the approval of Gilmar Mendes, author of the most antiLava Jato decision of the Lava Jato era. Monocratic decision that paved the way for Lula’s arrest.
In the previous chapter I pointed out precautions to avoid confusion in the debate: Lula has no factual or legal obligation to adhere to the list, and this has nothing to do with defending the values she represents; Following the list alone does not solve the Federal Ministry’s structural problems; Instead of thinking hypothetically about what the list would supposedly do, it’s better to also look at the specific 2023 list and the facts of history.
For critics, the triple list has irreparable flaws. Firstly, it is organized by a private corporation. Therefore, it would create corporatist choices. Second, the ANPR list represents only the MPF and would exclude other branches of the Federal Ministry of Public Affairs, which include the Ministry of Labor and the Military. And the PGR would be at the top of them all. Third, the list would pose the risk of a new car wash pervert. Choosing an outsider would minimize the risk.
In fact, the list of three has flaws and could be replaced with a better version. Since ideal solutions currently do not exist, replacing them with absolute presidential discretion dramatically worsens the imperfection. Objections would help, if possible, to think about reform. They simply do not allow us to conclude that, in the absence of an optimal solution, Lula should appoint an ally of Gilmar and similar people. The fear is justified. The drug is dangerous.
Is the Triple List a company? Yes, it allows the company to nominate three potential bosses. And it promotes a relationship of trust and legitimacy in the leadership of the institution. The President may or may not accept the proposal. And there are good reasons to welcome this: the promotion of independence so that the MPF can, for example, withstand the fury of political crime (or rich minorities against poor majorities, or organized crime against forest dwellers).
Is the Triple List corporatist? The objection warns that the list would only select prosecutors who are concerned about salaries and benefits. The MPF’s constitutional duties would take a back seat. First of all, it should be remembered that Augusto Aras, an outsider, was the most corporatist PGR since the creation of the list of three. Spread benefits.
For those who think that the triple list only includes corporatists, it is worth looking at history. On the 2013 triple list were Janot Ela Wiecko and Deborah Duprat, the two most honored public prosecutors in the Republic. In addition to Janot, Mario Bonsaglia and Raquel Dodge were there in 2015. Dilma chose the worst option. And he relapsed. A false attachment to first place.
Mario Bonsaglia has been on four triple lists in the past. It will take place in 2023 for its fifth year. Luiza Frischeisen has already been on two lists. She is on her third appearance in 2023. She Wiecko was on six and was never nominated. FHC had one chance to nominate her. Lula three times. Dilma twice.
The triple list is intended to avoid a car wash like Janot or Dallagnol as well as to prevent a reverse car wash like Aras. An insignificant figure in his career like Aras would never be chosen. A skilled character like Janot, perhaps. In this case, based on voting history, there tends to be one or two other serious candidates as alternatives.
Lula and Dilma made mistakes. The triple list has nothing to do with these errors. Then there were progressive alternatives. There is a progressive alternative on the 2023 list.
The Republican doesn’t vote for the first on the list, but rather the best on the list. For this reason we speak of a triple list and not a single list. It is not an infallible cure for anything. However, it tends to be less fallible than the blank check to the president. To the taste of every autocrat.
The next Bolsonaro calls for the final dismantling and demoralization of the triple list. Reforming it and correcting its weaknesses would help defend the Constitution. And if someone says, “But what about the risk of washing a car?”, go back to the first chapter.