O mandado de injunção e a abstrativização do exercício da jurisdição constitucional

The dimension of the Brazilian Supreme Court's (STF) shift of understanding regarding the writ of injunction, operated in 2007, is usually naturalized by doctrine and by the Court itself by being treated as an inexorable step towards the development of a jurisprudence that is concerned with the effectivity of its decisions. However, in a holistic interpretation, it can be observed that the shift is part of a new dynamic, here denominated “abstractivization”, in which the Court has been ressignifying the exercise of the constitutional jurisdiction [jurisdição constitucional], by trying to move away from the judgement of concrete litigations into the “constitutional normative order”. This way, regardless of the type of process which is submitted to it, the STF seeks to dissociate the Judiciary's activity, by attributing itself the task of fixating normative enunciations and shifting their application to the ordinary instances. By analyzing the STF's discourse on the judgement of the writ, between 1988 and 2015, the research attempted to mark some of the characteristics of the theory of law that offer a foundation to abstractivization, demonstrating how the strategy is determinant for the recent empowerment of the Court. Then, the research tried to test how the new model faces the promises which offer it legitimation: the effectivity of rights and the uniformity of jurisprudence. While the advancements must be emphasized, especially concerning the rupture with the MI 107, one must also underline its risks and limitations. The act of elaborating norms is more geared towards the pondering of interests, a function historically attributed to the Parliament, rather than towards the protection of counter-majority rights – not by chance. In an increasingly complex and fluid society, oriented by fear, the Judiciary appears as an apt and (supposedly) legitimate instance to substitute the (improbable) public debate as a social regulator. But it does so by abdicating of its deontological character and by being treated as a value, apart from reviving the Illuminist belief on the general and abstract rule as the a priori definition of law. Furthermore, it is dislocated towards a certain category of specialist, jurists, a moral role which is even more determinant in society. Coming from an elite that, historically, monopolizes the economical and/or social capital, whose prestige legitimates the new dimension of its power, they will occupy and even more decisive place in the construction of this new axiologically-oriented law. This way, apart from a questionable theoretical basis on which it is founded, abstractivization also evidences another fundamental aspect of our history: how to democratize the access to the State's deliberative instances, a theme that gains importance while the formation of law dislocates itself from an (already restrictive) public sphere and becomes, in proportion to the editing of norms by the STF, more and more self-referent.