The dictatorship in Brazil – How it imposed itself

At a conference-debate held in Nanterre, France, in honor of Salvador Allende, which brought together historians, political analysts, and journalists from the Southern Cone, Dr. Mariza de Melo Foucher, PhD in Economics, analyzes the coup d'état that took place in Brazil in 1964.

First of all, from my point of view, the coup d'état in Brazil was not only military but also civilian. At the time, Brazilian society became deeply polarized due to the belief that Brazil, under the presidency of João Goulart, would join Cuba in the communist bloc in Latin America. Influential politicians, media moguls, the Catholic Church, large landowners, and businessmen demanded a "counter-revolution" by the armed forces to overthrow the government. Society was polarized between two development models: one based on the creation of a national industry, advocating greater independence from international capital. This model also aimed at regional planning and promoting structural reforms, agrarian reform, education system reform, among others. The other model, defended by conservative sectors of society, advocated economic development linked to national and multinational companies, intensive agriculture geared towards export. This model advocated a greater connection with foreign capital and large landowners. The clash between these two visions occurred within the global geopolitical context dominated by the Cold War. With the support of the United States, conservative forces organized large popular demonstrations that openly called for military intervention. The doctrine of national security was then the cornerstone for combating the communist threat.

The Brazilian military disliked the use of the term "dictatorship," and it was through immense propaganda across all media outlets, especially with the support of the Globo television network, that they managed to forge a positive image of the coup d'état in the eyes of the Brazilian public. The network's owner, Roberto Marinho, declared:

"We participated in the 1964 Revolution, we identified with the national aspirations of preserving democratic institutions threatened by ideological radicalization, strikes, social problems and widespread corruption. When our newsroom was invaded by anti-revolutionary forces, we stood firm in our position. We continued to support the victorious movement from the first moments of the seizure of power until the ongoing opening process, which should be consolidated with the appointment of the new president." (1)

This is how the dictatorship entered the Brazilian people's imagination as a kind of pseudo-democracy that saved the nation! To this day, a good part of the armed forces make a fuss when the dictatorship is mentioned. The military has always had the support of conservative sectors, segments of the right wing, and the mainstream press, who celebrate March 31st as the date of the "glorious revolution." They do everything to try to erase this past and forget this dark period of Brazilian political history in the name, according to themselves, of national harmony.

What forms of resistance took place at the time, and how did they leave their mark on Brazilian society?

The absence of democracy did not prevent the organization of resistance. The meaning of resistance in Brazil is very broad, and the strategies are very different. It ranges from small armed groups close to the Cuban revolution and others that questioned the orientations of the communist parties allied with the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. There were also human rights organizations, groups organized within the Catholic Church, linked to what is called Liberation Theology, pastoral groups, community organizations, groups defending citizenship, women's groups, cultural and environmental defense groups, and popular education organizations. Not to mention the active participation of many artists, filmmakers, journalists, intellectuals, and singers. All this cultural terrorism by the dictators did not prevent artistic resistance from confronting censorship using metaphors and disguised messages. Music and theater had an incredible output during the years of repression. Artists managed to circumvent censorship but could not remain in the country; the dictatorship expelled and forced several artists into exile. By the end of the 70s, there was immense cultural impoverishment in Brazil. As for the journalists who defied the dictatorship, they left a lesson for the new generation: it is worthwhile to fight for freedom of expression! Quality journalism presupposes freedom of expression and diversity of sources, topics, and content, so that society can be informed in the broadest possible way and can participate in the life of the country.

All these groups, which were very important at that time, developed actions against the dictatorship. Resistance was organized everywhere, from north to south of the country. However, the process of democratization of the country...

It will happen very slowly.

How were citizens, democrats, and social movements, linked to international solidarity movements, able to overcome the dictatorship and participate in the emergence of a new democracy?

We must acknowledge and honor the social movements and popular organizations that contributed so much to the democratization process in Brazil. Under the protection of the most progressive sectors of the churches (Catholic and Protestant), and with the support of international solidarity, these social organizations continue their work in education and culture. These movements rejected the official version of pseudo-democracy. Through popular education, the followers of Paulo Freire developed a methodology of resistance in the most remote places of this immense territory. Despite the repression that continued throughout the dictatorship, "the pedagogy of the oppressed" (Paulo Freire) continued its work clandestinely, in the favelas, in working-class neighborhoods, with the aim of educating one another to socialize everyone's knowledge for the benefit of a collective project of transformation. In the 80s, new movements emerged (the Landless Workers' Movement), followed by other urban movements, and development NGOs restructured themselves. Initially somewhat scattered and often fragile, they will nevertheless develop the fight to accelerate the democratization process in Brazil and contribute to the formation of citizenship.

It is important to emphasize that one of the most significant struggles during this period of democratic transition in the country was the proposal for a new Constitution in Brazil, which turned 25 years old this year. All these organizations played a very important role because they managed to carry out a large national mobilization and presented more than 3000 proposals from the new civil society that was emerging in Brazil.

The promulgation of the 1988 Constitution was undoubtedly a historic step towards the democratization of the country; it expanded individual rights and strengthened democracy in Brazil. In 1989, the first direct presidential elections since 1960 took place, and for the first time, this generation would exercise its citizenship.

However, in Brazil's young democracy, it is necessary to continue fighting to establish a new democratic culture founded on active citizenship, because if democracy is dependent on the citizen, then collective participation and dialogue are indispensable.
What work of memory and what transmission in the face of current generations?

It is difficult to imagine that it took almost 28 years (after the "democratic transition") for the National Truth Commission (CNV), tasked with shedding light on the abuses committed during the years of repression, to finally see the light of day! Until recently, this period could not be brought up with young people, as if fear had permeated generations.

Unfortunately, this part of our political history is still taboo. It's a poorly told story in school textbooks. The younger generation that lived under the dictatorship and those born after 1964 will learn that the basic principles of moral and civic education are: order, security, national integration, and patriotism. The slogan for Brazil was: love it or leave it.

These symbols emphasized an exaggerated patriotism and were intended to allow a fusion of reactionary, conservative, and Catholic thought.

For this reason, the establishment of the Truth Commission will allow us to gather various pieces of the history won by the women and men who fought for the democratization of Brazil and, thus, tell the story of a period that harmed all forms of cultural expression and freedom of speech.

The Truth Commission is an important step, but it is necessary to maintain pressure to modify the amnesty law and determine who is responsible. The commission, for example, can interrogate former torturers, of course, but it will achieve nothing as long as the army refuses to open its archives.

Therefore, the struggle for democratization in Brazil is not over and always requires vigilance, because unfortunately there are still numerous people in Brazil who are nostalgic for that period.

The amnesty granted by the military was a negotiated agreement, a very ambiguous one, as it presupposed a feeling of reciprocal amnesty. Under the term "amnesty," victims and perpetrators were brought together on an equal footing. This reflected the weight of the different sectors and dominant social classes at the time, where the balance of power was previously favorable to the defenders of the dictatorship. As such, this entire dark, tragic period of our political history remained a taboo. The time has come to construct a memory that opposes the official memory and to defend true democratic values.

All this history of resistance to the military dictatorship in Brazil has been relegated to the annals of history. Only one truth was imposed on Brazilian youth.

The worst part was the silence of Brazilian institutions, and also of society, in the post-dictatorship period. The behavior of democrats in not confronting the crimes of the past is shocking, wrote Edson Teles in "Politics of Silence – The Memory of Post-Dictatorship Brazil".
Erasing the crimes committed by the dictatorship from memory is erasing the struggles waged against it. That's why documentaries today play a fundamental role, especially for Brazilian youth who have never had the opportunity to reflect on that period.

Certain documentaries come along to fill the void left by the absence of political historiography and the amnesia imposed by those dark years.

Bringing the truth to the attention of society about human rights violations and forms of resistance to the dictatorship is also a contribution to the construction of political memory.

Erasing the memory of this traumatic past is to prevent society from knowing the truth about the political violence imposed by the dictatorship. The generation that fought for democracy in Brazil was treated as terrorists during the last presidential campaign.

Brazil is still in the process of maturing its democracy.

(1) Roberto Marinho, in the newspaper O Globo, edition no. 1.596, October 7, 1984

Marilza de Melo Foucher holds a PhD in Economics, is a political analyst, journalist, and correspondent for Correio do Brasil in France.

Translation by Fábio Khouri.