Português

Abstract

The idea of a representative government that, by itself, to meet the needs of a collective will and unrestricted has been defended as true corollary of democracy. The liberal view that the policy has the ability to contemplate and accommodate increasingly dissonant interests is seductive, especially when defended as ideal of justice. However, contemporary society has proven skilled and very fertile in the art of play restricted groups, different and somewhat cohesive. Defending the interests of groups of people unable to articulate around a common proposal, sometimes prevents them from raising their will to the category of law or even include it in the agenda of the claims of the rulers. In this sense, democratic perspective makes it seem like the most is legitimized by a homogeneous group, whose interests are unisons and consensual. The truth is that the suffrage, carried out by a simple arithmetic calculation which aims majority vote gives the winner the right to rule, does not address equally the will of the electorate to make you feel represented. Allied to this, add the growing distrust, breaking expectations and uncertainties is as inevitable result of the weakening of political legitimacy and, above all, the validity of the resulting right of this equation. From there, it is necessary to question to what extent the contramajoritária perspective of Constitutional Jurisdiction has the power to expand the meanings of democracy, replacing interests by constitutionally established rights.