The practical reason for collegiality in the Federal Supreme Court and the principles of deliberative democracy

does dialogue matter?

Abstract

Contextualization: The interactive practices of a collegiate body such as the Federal Supreme Court directly affect the quality and legitimacy of the decisions made, with regard to both the epistemology of the institutional arrangements adopted and the quality of knowability of the deliberate content.

Objective: The focus of this article is the role of dialogue and collegiality, as it aims to contribute to reflection on the importance of dialogue in the Federal Supreme Court, whose decisions must reflect the consensus reached by the institution through practical reason, appropriate to the democratic model Brazilian.

Method: This work was based on research in which the opinion of the ministers themselves is exposed regarding the practices of dialogue within the Supreme Court, examined in light of the concept of deliberative democracy, a political model adopted by the Brazilian Constitution of 1988. This is a bibliographical research.

Results: The type of deliberative experience practiced at the Supreme Court implies the undoing of the collegial character of the Institution, which is replaced by the individualistic aspect of the judges, which harms the quality of their judicial decisions, reducing them more to personal opinions, minimizing the expression of the practical rationality of that institution.

Conclusions: The hypothesis is defended that it is necessary to take on the challenge of authentic dialogue as a practical reason for a relevant collective undertaking to reflect an institutional consensus, because this is a fundamental perspective for the legitimacy of the decisions of a Collegiate Court.