Running Head: FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 1

From Military Dictatorship to Democracy:

The Everlasting Brazilian Reconciliation Process

Fernanda Cherini

York University

 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 2

On March 31st of 1964, the Brazilian military staged a coup and installed a

dictatorship, which had terrible consequences at the time and that are still made present in

the current democracy. Brazil’s dictatorship lasted until 1985, being the longest in South

America during the wave of dictatorships that started in the 60s. This length is mainly due to

the slow and gradual transition process carried out by the military themselves, and the

struggle to break away from the military still persists. This is because many institutions and

elements of the dictatorship were preserved, including the mindset the military had at the

time. After more than 30 years from the end of the military regime, reconciliation process

and memory building remain incomplete. Thus, discussing this matter is still extremely

relevant, precisely to contribute positively to this process.

This paper will address the issue of why Brazil did not have a satisfactory

reconciliation and still does not. It will also attempt to identify what are the consequences of

this in the current society. It will bring out the features that have hindered reconciliation

and, in order to provide a better understanding and identification of those factors, it will draw

a comparison with the case of Argentina. This is helpful because Argentina had a very

different experience of military dictatorship, especially regarding the transition and the way

reconciliation and memory building was carried. Comparing the two countries will help

illustrate the importance certain factors had in the process of reconciliation. The paper will

also show that elements of the dictatorship have crystallized themselves in society, creating

a structural inability to address reconciliation properly. Achieving full democracy is

extremely hard in Brazil, as a consequence of a culture of human rights violations and abuse

of power that trace to even before the military came to power.

Elements of the Dictatorship

 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 3

One of the biggest constraints for reconciliation is the lack of support from the civil

society towards human rights movements and activism. Although there were groups against

the military, they did not receive much support from the majority of the population. This can

be explained because of the characteristics of the dictatorship, which ended up numbing the

society in relation to engaging in manifestations. The military had a strategy to gain support

from the population and to maintain a certain level of approval, and it did so through

economic, political, and psychosocial actions (Schwinn and Schmidt, 2015, p. 27). Politically,

Schwinn and Schmidt (2015) explain that the military regime tried to conceal its authoritarian

status to prevent resistance (p. 27). The political system still looked like a democracy, as

some of the institutions associated with it were kept. The president was “elected” by the

National Congress, which was composed by two parties (Aguiar & Lissovsky, 2014, p. 2),

the National Renewal Alliance (ARENA) and the Brazilian Democratic Movement (MBN)

as the “opposition”. This ensured that not everyone saw the regime as a real dictatorship,

which did not incite much urge to resist. It was only after the military had created this “base

of acceptance” that the dictatorship became its harshest (Aguiar & Lissovsky, 2014, p. 2).

Lack of civilian protests and disapproval was further hindered by a politics of social

terror, affecting the mass psychology. The concept of “if you have nothing to hide, you have

nothing to fear” was fully used. Brito (2001) also mentions that the Brazilian society is used

to high levels of violence, and that the tortures were more selective towards guerrilla

members (p. 125). Most of the society did not experience this brutal aspect of the dictatorship,

creating a notion (which lasts until today) that only the trouble-makers and outlaws were

punished. Occasionally, torture victims would be showcased as an example for the civilians

of what could happen to them, generating more civil obedience. This, coupled with laws that

forbade people to organize into groups, made it extremely difficult for the civil society to
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 4

organize into resistance movements. Finally, another important aspect of the military was the

great economic development, called the “miracle boom”. Low unemployment and inflation

rates created an illusion that the government was effective and good. These elements of the

Brazilian dictatorship, although not the only ones, have shaped the transition and

reconciliation process; especially by constraining organizations and activism.

However, it is only when we use a comparative perspective that we can understand

the full extent to which these elements have shaped the process of reconciliation with the

past. Argentina’s experience with the military dictatorship was quite different than Brazil’s,

although having similarities like good economic performance and the use of state terrorism,

the outcome was very distinct. The most relevant difference for this paper is the level of civil

organization and protests against the dictatorship in Argentina, to show the important role

these actors had. In Argentina, the military regime affected a great part of the population,

through the “Dirty War”, kidnappings, disappearances, and tortures were widespread

(Hayner, 2002, p. 33). This has fostered bitter memories and revolt in the citizens, victims

and their family members; it also made very explicit their status as a dictatorship, without

room for doubts like in Brazil.

Despite this, the dictatorship did not forbid civil associations, enabling citizens to

gather and protest against the military dictatorship. Courts of justice were maintained, and

although most denounces of human rights violation did not lead to any prosecution, they

helped keep a sort of database of the kidnappings, disappearances, murders, and other human

rights violations that were happening (Jelin, 1994, p. 38). The civil society certainly played

the key role of forming permanent organizations that denounced the human rights violations,

spreading information about the abuses, helping victims, and organizing protests (Jelin,

1994). Thus, the spirit of fighting the dictatorship was always present and very strong in
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 5

Argentina, during the regime, the transition, and still in democracy. This impeded a politics

of “forgetful reconciliation”, much to the contrary of the situation in Brazil.

Transitioning to Democracy

Moving to the transition process, another fundamental element to understand

the problems that remain in Brazilian reconciliation can be found. Brazil had a “from-above”

transition, which means that the military themselves organized the process to democracy.

This enabled the military to control the pace and terms in which it would happen, to ensure

that they could not be harmed in the new government. The transition process began as a result

both of international and internal pressure, in relation to economic and

humanitarian concerns. The main financial supporter of the dictatorship, the United States

was shifting away from supporting the military in Latin America; and the 1973 oil shock

initiated a period of economic instability (Schwinn & Schmidt, 2015, p. 28). International

organizations were also condemning the abuse of human rights, especially the United Nations,

helping strengthen popular movements that were also fundamental for the beginning of the

transition (p. 28).

The main characteristics of this process is that it was very slow and gradual, the

military announced their intention to give power back to civilians in 1974, and democracy

would only come 11 years later in 1985 (Comparato & Sarti, 2012, p. 11). In these

negotiations, the military approved what became the greatest hindrance to reconciliation, the

Amnesty Law. It gave total amnesty to all Brazilians involved in crimes committed during

the regime, both to the military and the resistance, further consolidating a culture of impunity

(Schwinn & Schmidt, 2015, p. 28). The president that took office in 1985, Jose Sarney, was

still affiliated to ARENA, the political party of the military and, therefore, was unwilling to
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 6

address the issue of reconciliation (Brito, 2001, p. 126). Also, the fact that the military left

when the economy was deteriorating, took the blame away from them and passed it on to

democracy. This contributed to people having “good memories” of the dictatorship,

especially when compared to democracy, which faced severe economic problems.

Argentina, on the other hand, had a transition by collapse, where the process had a

very clear breaking point and the military left the government in a bad light. As mentioned,

activism was always strong in Argentina, and when the economic crisis became more severe,

discontent rose even more. To dispel this, the military used a strategy of diverting attention

from internal problems and focusing it on an external enemy. The occupation of the Malvinas

Islands brought such a strong sense of nationalism, though this feeling was short-lived

(Hayner, 2002, p. 33). A counter-attack from Britain quickly defeated the Argentine military,

which was left demoralized and then faced even more rage from the population (p. 33). This

created a spirit of popular participation and resistance against a weakened and more

vulnerable military. Soon, popular elections were called, but not before the military had time

to also create an amnesty law (p. 33). Nonetheless, as shall be shown, it did not stop the

trial of the military, enabling the truth to come out, even if not fully. For these reasons, the

Argentinian transition made it so that the reconciliation process that followed this

transition was more effective than Brazil’s, although far from being perfect either.

The Reconciliation Process

After this period of transition, we can see how the first attempts to deal with the past

and to reconciliation were carried out. The type of transition influenced in many areas, such

as psychologically by creating a “forgiving mindset”; and in opportunities due to the laws

passed. In Brazil, the new democratic government’s reserved position about the dictatorship

did not want to address the reconciliation. The amnesty law also hindered any possibility of
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 7

prosecuting the military for the crimes committed during the dictatorship. For that reason,

the victims and their families could not have justice or truth, two important features of

reconciliation that were not touched upon. Aguiar and Lissovsky (2014), mention that one of

the most important part of memory building is treating the dictatorship as an interruption of

democracy (p. 3). However, that was not the case for early attempts at reconciliation, as they

mostly treated the period as a transition from a civil regime to a military one. Several

memorials and monuments were planned but not built, showing that this aspect of

reconciliation was not taken seriously. There were also conflicting versions about the

dictatorship, mainly between the military’s narrative, the government’s and civil society’s

more “moderate” position, and the reality that the victims experienced (Comparato & Sarti,

2012). The moderate view was the most predominant, usually inclining more towards the

military’s than the victim’s, but both other two narratives remained strong as well. The main

characteristics of the early reconciliation process was that it did not address many critical

issues, like establishing a collective memory, investigating the truth, and giving justice to the

victims.

In the case of Argentina, because of the kind of transition that happened, and the

characteristics of the dictatorship, reconciliation had less constraints. The government did

not have ties with the military, allowing a more straightforward plan to reconciliation. The

newly elected president, Raul Alfonsin, quickly annulled the amnesty law imposed by the

military, called for trials, proposed a reform of the military justice system, and created a

National Commission on the Disappearance of Persons (CONADEP) (Jelin, 1994, p. 47).

Alfonsin (1993), tried to be pragmatic and moderate, using the trials in a more symbolic way,

as examples that no group is beyond the law, only going after militaries of higher ranks (p.

16). Jelin (1994) mentions that the actions of the government were seen as “lukewarm and
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 8

timid” (p. 47), so the human rights movements kept demanding more forcefully for truth and

justice (p. 48). They considered the trials to be essential, so that a culture of impunity would

not consolidate and, instead, that ethical values would be developed (p. 49). As the human

rights movements had always been very strong in Argentina, their position soon

predominated and even lower ranks began to be trialed. They also had a key part in memory

building, putting forward the predominant narrative of the human rights violations committed

by the military (Jelin, 1994). The CONADEP also had a major role in investigating the truth

and producing a book with the results found, “Never Again” was a best-seller, being critical

both for memory building and for the trials against the military (Hayner, 2002, p. 34). In this

case, we can see all the elements necessary for reconciliation being addressed: memory

building, justice, and truth. Which was only possible by the willingness and efforts from the

government and human rights movements with support from the society, despite often

conflicting with each other.

Only after a president with no relations to the military was elected, that new

opportunities to address the military dictatorship and reconciliation we brought up again,

during the government of Fernanda Henrique Cardoso in 1998 (Brito, 2001, p. 126). The new

attempts started mostly with universities building monuments and memorials, however, even

now a moderate narrative of the dictatorship is preferred (Aguiar & Lissovsky, 2014). Aguiar

and Lissovsky (2014) mention the case of a memorial being constructed at the University of

Sao Paulo (USP) with a notice calling the dictatorship the “Revolution of 1964” (pg. 8). This

generated a lot of controversy and, after students started writing “dictatorship” and “coup”

in the notice, it was taken down and replaced with “military regime” (pg. 8). This euphemism

was used as a middle ground or compromise, trying to avoid the “harsh” truth, with the

justification of facilitating the transition (p. 10). Another incident mentioned by the authors
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 9

is the creation of a museum in 2009 that did not showcase the full reality of the dictatorship,

privileging “ease of visitation over exactitude of reconstruction” (p. 11). There was also little

effort made to ensure the representations were accurate, instead, a lot was based in fiction (p.

11). Also, although new monuments were constructed, they were very small and barely

noticed or acknowledged by the civil society. These examples show that there is still a lot of

conflict related to the memory of the period itself, and little willingness to fully address the

issue.

The election of President Dilma Rousseff in 2010 brought up with more force the

issue of the military dictatorship, as she was part of a resistance movement during the regime.

Rousseff was a torture victim and images of her being trialed by the military became a

popular topic in the media (Aguiar & Lissovsky, 2014, p. 13). Inciting the debate about how

the dictatorship was remembered. If in Argentina a national commission to investigate the

human rights violation was installed right after the dictatorship, in Brazil, it only happened

in 2011 (Comparato & Sarti, 2012, p. 10). Aside from having an important part in uncovering

the truth, the commission did not have any judicial power to trial the violators. Also, the work

of the Truth Commission did not have the same impacts as in Argentina, it did publish a

report on its findings, but it did not receive much attention. The Amnesty Law was revised

and federal courts started investigated the past as well (Comparato & Sarti, 2012, p. 9).

Prosecutors started finding loopholes in the law, allowing them the denounce colonels and

cases of disappearing. Nonetheless, this momentum to readdress the dictatorship was lost due

to the impeachment of President Rousseff and other political problems in the country (Aguiar

& Lissovsky, 2014, p. 14). Having discussed all these aspects of the reconciliation process,

it is possible to notice that the characteristics of the dictatorship have negatively affected the
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 10

chances to address this matter satisfactorily; which has further consequences in the current

and future Brazilian society.

The Remains of the Military Dictatorship in Modern Democracy

After discussing all these characteristics of the Brazilian dictatorship and transition,

this paper will briefly discuss the effects that they have in nowadays’ democracy. A tradition

that has consolidated in the society is the contempt towards human rights. Contrasting with

Argentina, a culture of condemning human rights violations was never acquired, in its place,

the violations are seen as normal and “accepted” by the majority of the population. The

impunity of the military also created a sense that it is not worth fighting and denouncing the

violations, since no change will be achieved. This further hindered any resistance from the

population and, although there are currently a lot of human rights movements in Brazil, they

do not represent the predominant view in the country about human rights. As mentioned,

most people tend to see human rights as a way to “defend outlaws”, ridiculing victims of

abuse or even blaming them for the violations. Finally, the strength that the narrative of the

military still possess has reinforced the belief that only those who try to “break the order” are

the ones who get punished; and that violating human rights is, therefore, deserved.

Since there was no reform, the military institution was kept the way it was during the

dictatorship. The police are still extremely feared by the population, due both to a trauma

from the dictatorship and because the institution did not change in its use of violence. In

particular, the military police are known for not respecting human rights, torturing and even

killing people deliberately. It is no surprise to see in the news stories of a student or young

person getting shot or beaten by the military police. Also, the culture of seeing the citizens

as internal enemies has been kept, so the mentality of the military is to “attack first and ask
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 11

questions later”. In such a context of extreme violence and abuse by the military, it seems

extremely odd that people would begin supporting them and claiming the military as heroes.

This interesting phenomenon started mostly in the recent protests against former President

Rousseff, with some civilians asking for military intervention. Now even politicians endorse

known torturers and the military, receiving then support from part of the population. This

seemingly crazy scenario is only possible due to this disdain for human rights, lack of truth

and of memory building, leaving space for the military narrative to rise.

Conclusion

This paper addressed the issue of why the reconciliation process was not fully carried

out in Brazil, and what are the consequences that it has in nowadays’ democracy. By

analyzing the characteristics of the dictatorship and the transition process, and then

contrasting it with Argentina’s case, it was possible to notice some of the reasons that

hindered reconciliation. Support for human rights movements was extremely important for

Argentina, but it was not possible in Brazil due to the way the military carried out the

dictatorship, gaining some acceptance from the population. Transition type is also a critical

aspect, as the military left in favourable terms, which were constructed by themselves. The

new democratic government maintained tights too close to the military and expressed no

interest in revising the Amnesty Law or carrying out other reconciliation measures such as

truthful memory building. As the elements of memory, truth, and justice were not present,

reconciliation in Brazil was far from complete.

Recent attempts have showed more success, with investigations starting to be

conducted and a collective memory to be built. However, after so long, a lot of momentum

has been lost and other political problems in the country have been considered more
 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 12

important. The consequences this has is that a lot of aspects from the military regime,

although not introduced by it, have remained and further crystallized themselves in the

current society. Disregard for human rights violations, and abuse of power by the police are

only a few examples. The higher level of effectiveness of new reconciliation attempts could

be a sign of hope that this issue can gradually improve. However, there are still huge obstacles

in the way of consolidating true democracy in Brazil.

 FROM MILITARY DICTATORSHIP TO DEMOCRACY 13

References

Aguiar, A. & Lissovsky, M. (2014). The Brazilian dictatorship and the battle of

images. Memory Studies, 1-16.

Alfonsin, R. (1993). Confronting the past: “Never Again” in Argentina. Journal of

Democracy, 4 (1), 15-19.

Brito, A. B. (2001). Truth, Justice, Memory and Democratization in the Southern Cone. In

Brito, A. B., Gonzalez, C. & Aguiar, P. (eds.) The Politics of Memory: Transitional

Justice in Democratizing Societies. New York: Oxford University Press, 119-159.

Comparato, B. K. & Sarti, C. (2012). Amnesty, Memory, and Reconciliation in Brazil:

Dilemmas of an Unfinished Political Transition. Paper presented at the International

Studies Association Annual Convention, San Diego, 1-4 April, 2012.

Hayner, P. (2002). Five illustrative truth commissions. In Unspeakable Truths: Facing the

Challenges of Truth Commissions. New York: Taylor and Francis, 32-49.

Jelin, E. (1994). The politics of memory: The human rights movement and the construction

of democracy in Argentina. Latin American Perspectives, 81 (21), 38-58.

Schwinn, S. A. & Schmidt, J. P. (2015). Da ditadura a democracia:

A inacabada transicao Brasileira. Revista Reflecao e Acao, 23 (2), 25-53.