Aproximações, distanciamentos e divergências: o diálogo possível entre a lei de improbidade administrativa e as concepções de accountability.

Abstract

This dissertation aims to analyze the dialogue between the institutional innovations in the Administrative Improbity Law (LIA) of 1992 and the concepts of accountability. The central question this work seeks to answer is the following: how do the legal and institutional innovations introduced by the Administrative Improbity Law interact with—i.e., converge with, diverge from, or distance themselves from—the different conceptions of accountability? The research is guided by the following hypothesis: the legal and institutional innovations introduced by the revision of the LIA correspond to the goal of making accountability effective, thus playing a role in strengthening Brazilian democracy. The main findings of the research indicate that the institutional innovations regarding administrative improbity established during the military regime diverge from the concepts of accountability due to their incompatibility with the nature of authoritarian regimes. The transformation of horizontal accountability instituted in Brazil in the period following the promulgation of the 1988 Constitution and the LIA demonstrates a distancing from the concept of delegative democracy (O'Donnell, 1998; 2017), and an alignment with the conception of accountability strengthened by the respective institutional innovations. Through the methodological procedure of Content Analysis, used to specifically identify the effects of accountability in the LIA regarding the role of the Public Prosecutor’s Office, the absence of any mention in the legal framework of mechanisms for transparency of actions or injunctions to make members of this institution accountable was evidenced, especially in light of the clear ambiguity surrounding improbity by negligence and by intent (dolo). Although the institutional element of intent (dolo) has created the conditions to influence the actions of prosecutors when filing administrative improbity lawsuits—imposing stricter evidentiary requirements for the accusation—it is not directly associated with instruments that require them to be held accountable by an actor external to the institution.