The Budget Process in a Democratic System

In representative democracies, the public budget follows an institutional process that reflects the principle of separation of powers and guarantees democratic control over the use of state resources. This process mainly involves the executive branch, which formulates and executes the budget, and the legislative branch, which examines, modifies and approves it as law.

✅ 1. Stages of the Budget Process

Stage	Principal Responsible
Formulation	Executive power
Approval and Law	Legislative power
Execution	Executive power
Control	Legislative Branch and Autonomous Bodies

✅ 2. Role of the Executive Branch

The executive branch has a central technical and operational role, but it cannot impose the budget on its own. Its function includes:

📌 Project Formulation

• Prepared through the Ministry of Treasury, Finance or similar.
• Based on public policies, government priorities, economic projections, and tax revenues.
• It collects information from all ministries and agencies.
• It is filed within the deadlines established by law.

📌 Presentation

• The project is sent to the legislature for analysis and approval.
• The executive proposes, but does not legislate.

📌 Execution

• Once approved, the executive manages the resources:
  • Make payments
  • Contract services and works
  • Transfer funds
• You can request modifications during implementation, depending on changes in the economic or political context.

📌 Accountability

• It reports periodically to the legislature and control bodies on the execution of the budget.
• Presents reports and budget settlements.

✅ 3. Role of the Legislative Branch

The legislature guarantees that public spending is carried out with democratic representation. Its function is to turn the budget into law, which involves:

• Review the project presented by the executive.
• Modify budget items.
• Approve, reject, or amend the budget.
• Establish limits and conditions for public spending.

🗣️ Key principle: "There is no expenditure without representation".
In other words, no public resource can be used without the approval of the legislative body.

✅ 4. International Variations: Where Does the Legislature Have the Most Budgetary Power?

Although in most countries the budget is prepared by the executive, some democratic systems allow a more active role for the legislative:

🇺🇸 United States

• The President proposes, but Congress has broad control.
• Budget committees can profoundly modify or even write their own version.
• It reflects the principle that "the power of the purse" belongs to Congress.

🇸🇪 Sweden and Scandinavian countries

• The executive presents the budget, but Parliament can make substantial changes.
• There is a culture of broad consensus and multi-party participation from early stages.

🇩🇪 Germany

• The Bundestag has an important role in the revision and modification of the budget.
• The executive presents the project, but the legislature refines and adjusts the items through specialized committees.

🧩 In short

• The Executive proposes.
• The Legislature provides.
• They both control each other.

This system of checks and balances ensures that the executive branch cannot spend without democratic approval, and that the legislature legislates based on technical and administrative information provided by the executive.

The Politics of Hate: When Debate Turns to Destruction

It is an uncomfortable truth, but undeniable: politics has hit rock bottom. What should constitute the natural stage for debate, the exchange of ideas and the construction of projects for the common good, has degraded to become a ring where the only rule is to hit harder than the adversary.

The phenomenon is not new, but its current intensity is alarming. Political campaigns have almost completely abandoned the discussion of concrete proposals to take refuge in a simpler and, unfortunately, more effective strategy: that of fear. It is no longer a question of convincing the electorate with detailed programs or viable solutions to everyday problems. The new manual dictates a more primitive formula: "Don't vote for me because I'm good, vote for me because the other is dangerous."

The ideological emptying

The two majority forces in the political spectrum – although they are not the only ones responsible for this drift – have made polarisation their main electoral asset. Meanwhile, the major discussions that should be at the center of the democratic debate have disappeared from the radar: what economic model does the country need?, how to guarantee social justice?, what strategies to adopt in the face of climate change?, how to strengthen citizens' rights?

These questions, essential to the future of any society, have been buried under an avalanche of aggressive slogans, ad hominem attacks, and disinformation campaigns. The result is an impoverished public discourse that drags with it the quality of democracy itself.

When the adversary becomes an enemy

Political criticism is not only legitimate, but necessary. It is part of the democratic DNA and fulfils an indispensable function of checks and balances. The problem arises when that critique transcends the limits of the political and enters personal territory, when the opponent is no longer seen as someone with different ideas to be perceived as an enemy who must be annihilated.

This dynamic not only normalizes hatred, but institutionalizes it. Visceral rejection is encouraged, mutual distrust is fueled, and the social fabric is fractured into seemingly irreconcilable factions. The damage transcends the political sphere to settle in the very heart of citizen coexistence.

The citizen cost

What does the common citizen get out of this pitched battle? The answer is discouraging: frustration, disenchantment and a growing disaffection with politics as a tool for change. Many have lost faith in the system; others go to the polls moved not by hope, but by fear. None of these attitudes nurture a healthy democracy.

The paradox is cruel: while politics is degraded, real problems persist without solutions. Poverty, insecurity, the educational crisis or the deterioration of public services await answers that never arrive, buried under the deafening noise of sterile confrontation.

The vicious circle

The most worrying thing is that this model works. That is why it is perpetuated. As long as hatred mobilizes more voters than ideas, as long as the media privilege conflict over analysis, as long as leaders find in confrontation a more profitable shortcut than dialogue, the downward spiral will continue.

The incentives of the system seem designed to reward the worst of human nature and punish the best. In this context, the politician who is committed to moderation, consensus and collective construction runs the risk of being perceived as weak or irrelevant.

Signs of hope

However, it is not all doom and gloom. There are still voices that vindicate politics with capital letters: that which is based on ethics, is nourished by concrete proposals and is exercised with respect for the adversary. There are also citizens who demand a different way of doing politics, who refuse to be hostages of fear and manipulation.

Perhaps the change does not come from the party leadership, but from the social base. Perhaps it is organized citizens, civil society organizations and local leaders who will chart the path to a more constructive and less destructive policy.

The true democratic thermometer

In the end, a democracy is not measured by the number of votes that each party gets, but by the quality of its debates, respect for differences, and the collective capacity to build solutions. As long as these elements remain absent, everything else will effectively be political junk.

The choice is in our hands: to continue feeding the monster of hatred or to recover politics as an instrument of social transformation. The future of democracy depends on this collective decision.