| dc.description.abstract | This thesis is about the Welfare State in Brazil, in the view of its so called main crises, from the classical reading from Pierre Rosanvallon: a cash flow (financial) problem – or a fiscal crisis –, imposing new and different outlines – from ideological and philosophical points of view – that question the decision-making and weaken the bonds of solidarity that form the fabric of the Welfare State, waving to a kind of limit to this social and political institution. Especially in Brazil, this set of crises appears to be aggravated by particularities, such as entrenched deficits of republicanism (patrimonialism), in which dominant groups treat public matters as private ones. This scenario projects the emergence of another crisis. Into the mainstream of the discrediting of our political institutions – and considering the obstacles for the Welfare State in Brazil – a functional crisis is projected, in which one power – the Judiciary – overlaps to another – the Executive. This context – of obstacles to the Welfare State, patrimonialism and overlapping of powers – breaks with the public language that establishes a (new) project of society observed in the 1988 Constitution – in a reading aimed at approach the Philosophy of Language projected from the so called Second Wittgenstein and the Theory of State –, giving rise to a paradox: under the veil of an ideal of efficacy – greater and more legitimate –, the Judiciary, by occupying the space of politics and stifling our political institutions, as the National Congress, for example, or, locally, as public administrations – much in the light of their own crises and the discrediting that ensues from them – is also unable to observe the barriers that limit the Welfare State in Brazil. The conclusion is that what is seen here as a bet on the Judicial power does not take into consideration the fiscal-financial crisis that limits it, since it only privatizes the demand, concretizing the Welfare State to those who provoke it (and the State itself takes advantage of it, by making concrete the right only to those who demand, to reduce costs). In addition, the questions about decision-making remain, since the ideological crisis of the Welfare State is largely due to the scarcity of resources and also linked to a crisis of representativeness. And, finally, the fragility of the bonds of solidarity that make up the Welfare State is aggravated, waving to a kind of anthropological crisis, as the concretization of the Welfare State, via the Judiciary, occurs from the court case. | en |
