REVERSE JUDICIALIZATION AS A STRATEGY OF DOMINATION: CONCEPTUAL DISPUTES IN PUBLIC POLICIES ON QUILOMBO LANDS

ABSTRACT: The work presented seeks to break the paradigms related to the common sense that involves the understanding of the institute of the judicialization of public policies and to present a new horizon for the perception that the institute, despite having been created in search of the effectiveness of democracy, can have its use distorted and used with the aim of de-democratization. The proposal followed the path of political science with a detailed analysis of the speeches present in ADI nº 3.239/2004 that had as objective the annulment of Federal Decree nº 4.887/2003. The action was proposed by a political party with a capitalist and liberal base against the decree whose purpose is the land regularization of quilombola lands. One of the argumentative points of the demand was the conceptual dispute about the concept of quilombo, since the contested decree presents self-assignment to quilombola as one of the requirements for access to the right to land. The use of the concept of the historic quilombo or the contemporary quilombo is a crucial point for the restriction or expansion of the subjects of rights provided for in art. 68 of the ADCT, which guarantees the right to land to quilombola communities, and the contested decree is the effective means of accessing this fundamental right. Therefore, for the dominant class to print its definition on the (historical) concept of quilombo is to restrict the subjects of rights and keep the land under the ownership of the landowners. As for the quilombola communities, broadening the understanding of the concept of the (contemporary) quilombo is more than recognition and guarantee of rights, reflecting a need for citizenship today and not in the past. Class struggles, domination and the perpetuation of inequalities permeate the discourses and constant manifestations of the analyzed process and reflect the use by the dominant class of legal instruments, which are daily understood as defenders of democracy in favor of their vested interests.