A arte de não fazer: composição Senatorial, Eleição de 2026 e a Política Externa Brasileira | The art of not doing: the Composition of the Senate, the 2026 Election, and Brazilian Foreign Policy

Autores

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.12957/rmi.2026.101272

Palavras-chave:

Política Externa Brasileira, Senado Federal, Instituições Informais

Resumo

Como o mesmo Senado brasileiro aprova mais de 97% das indicações diplomáticas, deixa o posto de Washington vago por 16 meses e, em 2026, rejeita pela primeira vez desde Floriano Peixoto um candidato ao STF? Argumentamos que a taxa de deferimento formal é medida imperfeita do condicionamento legislativo: capta só o desfecho de uma filtragem que ocorre antes do voto, via três mecanismos informais (antecipação de preferências, beija-mão, hold por omissão) cuja função muda com a composição coalicional do Senado sem que a aprovação registre isso. Com uma simulação Monte Carlo de 50.000 iterações para 2026 (renovação de 54 das 81 cadeiras), mostramos que o colapso institucional (C4) é ausente, enquanto o regime contencioso (C2) chega a 61% de probabilidade e mantém deferimento (91–93%) quase idêntico ao rotineiro (92–93%), descolamento entre alto deferimento e custo real de vacância, atraso e autocensura que a métrica convencional não capta. O achado sugere que taxas de veto subestimam o poder do Legislativo.

Downloads

Não há dados estatísticos.

Referências

Adewale, S. (2026) ‘Diplomacy as Patronage: Ambassadorial Appointments, Elite Politics, and State Power in Nigeria’. African Studies Quarterly, 24(2), 1-18.

Bachrach P; Baratz M. S. (1962) ‘Two Faces of Power’. American Political Science Review,56(4):947-952. doi:10.2307/1952796.

Belém Lopes, D.; Carvalho, T.; Santos, V. (2022) ‘Did the far right breed a new variety of foreign policy? The case of Bolsonaro's “More-Bark-Than-Bite” Brazil’. Global Studies Quarterly, 2(4), ksac078.

Bermeo, N. (2016) ‘On democratic backsliding’. Journal of democracy, 27(1), 5-19.

Binder, S. A.; Maltzman, F. (2004) ‘The limits of senatorial courtesy’. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(1), 5-22.

Bulmer, S. (2009) ‘Politics in Time meets the politics of time: historical institutionalism and the EU timescape’. Journal of European public policy, 16(2), 307-324.

Duque, M. G. (2018) ‘Recognizing international status: A relational approach’. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 577-592.

Esposito, F.; Becker, T. (2023) ‘The time of politics, the politics of time, and politicized time: an introduction to chronopolitics’. History and Theory, 62(4), 3-23.

Farias de Souza, A. L. C; Santos, V. S. (2014) A análise da política externa do governo Dilma Rousseff na perspectiva dos pronunciamentos oficiais na ONU.

Ginsburg, T.; Huq, A. Z. (2020) How to save a constitutional democracy. University of Chicago Press.

Haglund, E. T. (2022) ‘Competition or Collusion? How Presidents and the Senate Evade or Enforce Statutory Requirements for Ambassadorial Nominees’. Congress & the Presidency, 49(3), december, pp. 363-383, Routledge, DOI:10.1080/07343469.2021.2009056.

Helmke, G.; Levitsky, S. (2004) ‘Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda’. Perspectives on politics, 2(4), 725-740.

Hollibaugh Jr, G. E. (2015) ‘The political determinants of ambassadorial appointments’. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(3), 445-466.

Hollibaugh Jr, G. E. (2016) ‘Presidential appointments and public trust’. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 618-639.

Howard, N. O.; Hughes, D. A. (2022) ‘Revisiting senatorial courtesy and the selection of judges to the US Courts of appeals’. Political Research Quarterly, 75(1), 61-75.

Adewale, S. (2026) ‘Diplomacy as Patronage: Ambassadorial Appointments, Elite Politics, and State Power in Nigeria’. African Studies Quarterly, 24(2), 1-18.

Bachrach P; Baratz M. S. (1962) ‘Two Faces of Power’. American Political Science Review, 56(4):947-952. DOI:10.2307/1952796.

Belém Lopes, D.; Carvalho, T.; Santos, V. (2022) ‘Did the far right breed a new variety of foreign policy? The case of Bolsonaro's “More-Bark-Than-Bite” Brazil’. Global Studies Quarterly, 2(4), ksac078.

Bermeo, N. (2016) ‘On democratic backsliding’. Journal of democracy, 27(1), 5-19.

Binder, S. A.; Maltzman, F. (2004) ‘The limits of senatorial courtesy’. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 29(1), 5-22.

Bulmer, S. (2009) ‘Politics in Time meets the politics of time: historical institutionalism and the EU timescape’. Journal of European public policy, 16(2), 307-324.

Duque, M. G. (2018) ‘Recognizing international status: A relational approach’. International Studies Quarterly, 62(3), 577-592.

Esposito, F.; Becker, T. (2023) ‘The time of politics, the politics of time, and politicized time: an introduction to chronopolitics’. History and Theory, 62(4), 3-23.

Farias de Souza, A. L. C; Santos, V. S. (2014) A análise da política externa do governo Dilma Rousseff na perspectiva dos pronunciamentos oficiais na ONU.

Ginsburg, T.; Huq, A. Z. (2020) How to save a constitutional democracy. University of Chicago Press.

Haglund, E. T. (2022) ‘Competition or Collusion? How Presidents and the Senate Evade or Enforce Statutory Requirements for Ambassadorial Nominees’. Congress & the Presidency, 49(3), december, pp. 363-383, Routledge, DOI:10.1080/07343469.2021.2009056.

Helmke, G.; Levitsky, S. (2004) ‘Informal institutions and comparative politics: A research agenda’. Perspectives on politics, 2(4), 725-740.

Hollibaugh Jr, G. E. (2015) ‘The political determinants of ambassadorial appointments’. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 45(3), 445-466.

Hollibaugh Jr, G. E. (2016) ‘Presidential appointments and public trust’. Presidential Studies Quarterly, 46(3), 618-639.

Howard, N. O.; Hughes, D. A. (2022) ‘Revisiting senatorial courtesy and the selection of judges to the US Courts of appeals’. Political Research Quarterly, 75(1), 61-75.

Jacobi, T. (2005) ‘The senatorial courtesy game: explaining the norm of informal vetoes in advice and consent nominations’. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 30(2), 193-217.

Jett, D. C. (2021) American Ambassadors: A Guide for Aspiring Diplomats and Foreign Service Officers. Springer Nature.

Kim, M.; Fu, S. (2025) ‘Bringing Home the Bacon: Politician Ambassadors and Home State Trade’. World Politics, 77(2), 382-417.

Lemos, L. B.; Llanos, M. (2006) The politics of senatorial confirmations: a comparative study of Argentina and Brazil (No. 22). GIGA Working Papers.

Levitsky, S.; Ziblatt, D. (2018) Como as democracias morrem. Editora Schwarcz-Companhia das Letras.

MacDonald, P. K. (2021) ‘Are You Experienced? US Ambassadors and International Crises, 1946–2014’. Foreign Policy Analysis, 17(4), orab02

Mahoney, J.; Thelen, K. (Eds.). (2009) Explaining institutional change: Ambiguity, agency, and power. Cambridge University Press.

Niklasson, B.; Jezierska, K. (2024) ‘The politicization of diplomacy: a comparative study of ambassador appointments’. International Affairs, 100(4), 1653-1673.

Perlmutter, J. (2025) ‘The President's Foreign Policy Appointment Power Is Being Undermined’. Columbia Journal of Transnational Law, 63, 542.

Pierson, P. (2004) Politics in time: History, institutions, and social analysis. Princeton University Press.

Qin, T. (2026) Diplomatic Gaps and Global Finance: How US Ambassadorial Vacancies Affect Bilateral Portfolio Investment Positions.

Santos V (2022) Disputas e dissonâncias na política externa brasileira: Presidentes, burocracia e o legislativo na Nova República. Repositório Institucional da UFMG.

Santos, V.; Lopes, D. B. (2022) ‘Confirmação: o lugar do Senado Federal na política externa brasileira da Nova República’. Dados, 66(4), e20200243.

Santos, V. (2025a) ‘Before the alarm sounds: How parliaments manage silence, salience, and control in foreign affairs’. Revista Brasileira de Política Internacional, 68(1), e012.

Santos, V. (2025b) ‘Inside the Fog: Assessing Foreign Policy Expertise in the Brazilian Federal Senate’. Dados, 68(3), e20240038.

Santos, V. (2025c) ‘Do Palácio dos Arcos às Salas de Comissão: como o Senado agenda, informa e fiscaliza a Política Externa Brasileira’. Carta Internacional, 20(2), e1606.

Santos, V. S. (2025d) ‘Por que não eu? Em busca de uma análise de política externa legislativa no Brasil’. Mural Internacional, 16.

Santos V. (s.d.) O escudo sob estresse: Senado, eleições e política externa no Brasil. s.n., no prelo.

Santos V. (2026a) Gatekeeping by Silence: How Committee Chairs Control Ambassadorial Confirmations. Trabalho apresentado no Congresso da Associação Brasileira de Ciência Política (ABCP), Belém.

Santos, V. (2026b) ‘SenatebR: Collecting Data from the Brazilian Federal Senate’. Dados, 69, e20240080.

Scoville R. M. (2019) ‘Unqualified ambassadors’. Duke Law Journal. Oct 1; 69(1):71-196.

Spohr AP. (2019) ‘Parliamentary supervision of brazilian foreign policy: an analysis of approval of authorities’. Brazilian Political Science Review, 13(3): e0004.

Streeck, W.; Thelen, K. (editors). (2005) Beyond continuity: Institutional change in advanced political economies. Oxford University Press; mar 10.

Tsebelis G. (2002) Veto players: How political institutions work. Princeton University Press; dec 31.

Waterman R.W., Bretting, J., Stewart, J. (2015) ‘The Politics of US Ambassadorial Appointments: From the Court of St. James to Burkina Faso’. Social Science Quarterly, jun; 96(2):503-22.

Downloads

Publicado

14-09-2026

Como Citar

SILVA DOS SANTOS, Vinicius. A arte de não fazer: composição Senatorial, Eleição de 2026 e a Política Externa Brasileira | The art of not doing: the Composition of the Senate, the 2026 Election, and Brazilian Foreign Policy. Mural Internacional, Rio de Janeiro, v. 17, p. e101272, 2026. DOI: 10.12957/rmi.2026.101272. Disponível em: https://www.e-publicacoes.uerj.br/muralinternacional/article/view/101272. Acesso em: 17 set. 2026.

Edição

Seção

CONTRIBUIÇÕES ESPECIAIS | SPECIAL CONTRIBUTIONS