A frente parlamentar da agropecuária e sua atuação nas comissões de agricultura, pecuária, abastecimento e desenvolvimento rural (CAPADR) e da comissão de meio ambiente e desenvolvimento sustentável (CMADS)

Abstract

Political Parties are important in the organization of legislative process in Brazil. Another setting is present in the legislative, the Parliamentary Fronts, a multiparty group, that make possible for the congressmen to transit among several situations. This study refers to a relation between political parties and Parliamentary Fronts, thinking how parties can get advantages in the commissions through this political structure. This work will research the constitution of the Parliamentary Front of Agricultural (FPA) and its role in the Commission for Agriculture, Food Supply and Rural Development (CAPADR) even as Commission for Environmental and Sustainable Development (CMADS). Analyses the occupation of FPA members in the positions of holders in theses commissions. Examining what is your ability to control about the key positions within them, presidency, and rapporteurs to guarantee decisions that express the interests of the FPA. The survey refers to years 2007 to 2018, starting at fiftieth third to fiftieth fifth legislature. Data were collected in three dimensions: the composition of the FPA in the legislatures; the compositions pf the commissions; and the distribution of reports in CAPADR e CMADS. In the composition of the FPA, parliamentarians from states in which the agricultural sector is more relevant to the economy predominate. It was verified that, regarding the presidencies of the commissions, there is a greater occupation by the FPA in CAPADR, indicating that this front favors the performance of its members in this Commission. The presence of FPA members at CMADS is also significant, although it does not reach 50%. This context is repeated in the reports. The results proposed in the reports of the committees were also analyzed, in order to observe whether there are differences in approval and rejection rates of reports made by members and non- members of the FPA. In this case, although there are some differences, they are not significant between the commissions. Complementarily, it was also possible to observe the success of the reports of the members of the FPA. In the case of CAPADR there was no report from FPA members rejected. Three of the five reports rejected at CMADS were from FPA members. It is possible to notice greater strength of the FPA in CAPADR, exactly in the commission that is more directly linked to the rural theme, explaining the FPA's strategy of controlling key points of power in the legislative power of Brazil.