Brazil

From 1964 through 1989, a military administration oversaw Brazil. There were six different presidents throughout the 25 years of military administration (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). An American-backed coup in Brazil in 1964 marked the start of the country's military dictatorship. Joao Goulart, the president at the time, was temporarily replaced by Pascoal Ranieri Mazzilli, the speaker at the time. Later, General Humberto de Alencar Castello Branco was chosen to succeed Goulart as president (Arceneaux & Craig 2001).
Then, until 1989, when a civilian president was elected, military authority prevailed. The military government committed a lot of atrocities including the use of torture to get information from people who opposed them, intimidating their opposers, killing innocent civilians, arbitrary arresting suspects, and imprisoning people who differed with them ideologically without trial (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). One of the crude means they used to stay in power was to torture the opponents of the government by beating, castrating or raping them. Brazilians became worried and opposed how the government was doing things.

Some resistance began after the Coup d'état when students, Marxists, Catholic church members and all workers came together to oppose the military government. Many of them supported the use of dialogue to return the country to the civilians (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). However, some supported the use of force or struggle. The struggle led to many people’s detention and some workers being laid off. In 1968, student’s protests became widespread, and the military government did some changes to suppress this opposition (Stepan & Alfred 1989). One change was the introduction of the Fifth Institutional Act that did away with the system of democracy and brought new rules which were very repressive. The military government continued with its oppression until in 1979 when President Figueiredo assumed power and began a slow process of democratizing Brazil (Arceneaux & Craig 2001).

The democracy transition

President Figueiredo

The democratic change for Brazil began to take shape in 1979 when President João Figueiredo was inaugurated. After coming into power, Figueiredo was aware of the unpopularity that the military government had because of the way the forces treated civilians (Stepan & Alfred 1989). He was also worried that the armed troops would be prosecuted for the atrocities they had committed in the previous regimes. The army had violated human rights by torturing and harming innocent civilians who tried to fight for their rights. Figueiredo, therefore, decided to be a defender of rights rather than an oppressor (Stepan & Alfred 1989). He promised to restore democracy in Brazil and give power back to the citizens, and although it would be a slow process, it bore fruits at last.

President Figueiredo began by releasing political prisoners who had been detained without trial after resisting the actions of the military government. He also encouraged those who had fled the country due to threats by the state or fear for assassination to come back and build the nation (Waisman, Carlos and Raanan 2006). Additionally, he facilitated the passing of the Amnesty Law in 1979 which allowed people who had left the country because of fear of torture and prosecution to come back. The law prohibited courts from prosecuting those who had gone into exile as well as security personnel who were involved in torturing the civilians (Stepan & Alfred 1989). The president was well aware that if these laws were not enacted, he would also be prosecuted because he was the former head of intelligence department and knew about the inhumane treatment of people that was going on (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995). Censorship of the media was lifted, and there was freedom to create political parties without the government’s objection.

Although military leaders ruled by iron fist after getting to power, Figueiredo chose a completely different path. Previously, military generals would not tolerate any political dissent; they did not believe in the use of dialogue to solve problems but instead used torture, arrests, and imprisonment as their tools (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995). Although Figueiredo’s actions were considered genuine to the civilians, he had some mischievous ideas such as allowing a multiparty system in a bid to divide the opposition. In 1982 on April there was a concert organized by the opposition wing in honor of Mayday. Figueiredo’s army used bombs to disrupt the meeting, and one police officer died while detonating another bomb (Stepan & Alfred 1989). Several other explosives were found in the building, but the government blamed the leftwing and accused them of being terrorists. This strategy backfired and made people extremely angry with the government. The military government was losing its grip on governance because it was becoming more unpopular (Stepan & Alfred 1989).

Figueiredo was willing to bring change although at a slow pace. In 1984 Brazilians were very happy when a bill was tabled to amend the constitution to allow citizens to elect their preferred candidates directly. However, Figueiredo’s troops camped outside the congress hall and tried to intimidate the Congress from passing the bill into law (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). Many Brazilians flocked the streets and chanted in support of the amendment in millions. Eventually, the opposition was unable to garner a two-thirds majority hence the bill could not become law. At the beginning of 1985, the Electoral College came to the aid of the opposition and selected Tancredo Neves as the president (Stepan & Alfred 1989). Figueiredo’s government was not happy with this and tried to sabotage the move through different means. One method was when Figueiredo escaped from the palace through the back door to make the power handover impossible. He even refused to talk to the media (Arceneaux & Craig 2001).

The Brazil military

The military initiated the democratic change in Brazil in 1974. The military leaders wanted to stop being involved in politics and intended to pave the way for citizens to get back their say in the government (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995). The military had gained a lot of financial prosperity and still had a substantial civilian following because they were believed to be the saviors of the country from the communists. Their party was strong and had mastered the best ways to get support from the civilians. The pro-government party held most of the seats in the lower congress house and still was the most powerful party (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995).

The military gradually reduced the use of torture until in 1978 when people were given the freedom of expression. In 1979 the Amnesty Law was signed, and new parties were allowed in Brazil. Since 1965 the opposition’s power had begun becoming stronger but had not gained enough power to topple the military rule. In 1982 the military regime ran into significant problems because the country plunged into deep financial crisis (Stepan & Alfred 1989). The Figueiredo government lost the support they had from the elites and civilians because there were a lot of economic problems. The economic hardships fastened the process of democratization because a lot of pressure was now exalted on the military administration by civil groups, the opposition and it became tough for them to remain in power (Stepan & Alfred 1989).

The Democratic Social Party which was allied to the military government was the dominant party, and the military thought that they still had a lot of influence. The military believed that their dominant party would make them have the upper hand in getting the next presidential candidate (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). However, this did not take place because the candidate came from the opposition party. In 1982 Brazilians had become impatient and agitated because there was a lot of economic struggle. The per capita income had gone down by 15% in three years.

Since 1981 the rate of unemployment had raised sharply, and the ordinary citizens were not happy with how things were operating. Inflation rose swiftly from 20% to more than 100% just in the period between 1970 and 1983 (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). All these problems indicated that the government was headed in the wrong direction and people who used to be pro-government changed their tune. The elite defected, and people revolted in large numbers opposing the government. Another tragedy was the nomination of a presidential candidate by the PDS who was considered unpopular (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996).

The opposition united with the politicians of the pre-military administration and exerted pressure on the government to end its rule. The opposition wing began demanding direct presidential elections in 1984 by use of demonstrations (Waisman, Carlos and Raanan 2006). Huge crowds of people demonstrated all over the country in streets putting pressure on the military government to allow for presidents to be elected democratically. The state became divided by the demonstrations because some leaders began feeling the pressure and noting that things were changing. However, in 1984 the bill for direct presidential elections failed to sail through (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996).

PresidentTancredo Neves who was the official opposition leader began convincing some PDS representatives to support the opposition (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). Some PDS leaders accepted to team up with Neves because they were sure that the military government would not survive for long due to the ongoing economic crisis. Neves also convinced the military officers not to use coup because things would get worse. Neves was elected on January 1, 1985, and became the first civilian president after years of military rule (Waisman, Carlos and Raanan 2006).

The Civil Resistance

Diretas ja was the public resistance in 1984 as the Brazilians agitated for the direct presidential elections. Those who took part in the resistance include students, trade unions, political parties, journalists, and civilians (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). Some of the politicians who were in the forefront during the fight for democracy include Tancredo Neves, Andre Franco Montoro, Ulysses Guimaraes, Eduardo Suplicy and many more. Musicians were also in the resistance with Milton Nascimento, Gilbert Gil, and Fernanda Montenegro leading them. The church was also a big player in the resistance, and the Roman Catholic Church was in the forefront. Journalists made sure that they informed the public about whatever was going on in the country and encouraged people to resist the military government which was leading the state in the wrong direction (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996).

The first location where public protests were staged was Abreu e Lima in Pernambuco. The demonstrations occurred on March 31, 1983, and the members of PMDB were the primary participants (Waisman, Carlos and Raanan 2006). After the first protest took place, the following demonstrations happened in Goiania which is the capital of Goias. Then protests spread all over the country with people filling the streets demanding for direct presidential elections. The protests were catalyzed by the economic turmoil in the state because inflation had risen to 239% in the year 1983 (Waisman, Carlos and Raanan 2006). The poor economy had led to an increase of the people agitating for better governance through class entities and trade unions. A large number of representatives also took part in the protests to fight for the direct presidential elections. The pro-government politicians formed the ARENA to make their grievances heard because they had become aware that things were not going on well in the country (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996).

The ARENA party gained a lot of following and began to openly air their grievances and mobilize people to come together and protest. In the January of 1984, Andre Franco Montoro who was the governor for Sao Paulo organized a campaign to pressure the government to allow direct elections of the president in Sao Paulo (Stepan & Alfred 1989). The military government was on its knees because even the members of the military in the lower ranks were financially struggling. Inflation was affecting everyone except those who were able to loot from the government. Therefore, even people who had been major defenders of the military rule were no longer able to do so because they were affected by the poor governance too (Stepan & Alfred 1989). The most prominent and final demonstration was held on April 16 in Anhangabau Valley. This demonstration was to push the Congress to vote for the direct election of the president. There were more than 1.5 million people in the Valley, making it one of the greatest political demonstrations in the history of Brazil (Stepan & Alfred 1989).

To make things calm down, President Figueiredo tried to censor the press and police violence, and arrests became the order of the day (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). The bill did not pass through because some pro-government deputies did not vote and lack of quorum meant that it would not pass. The failure of the bill to sail through, however, made the demonstrators more agitated and more demonstrations were held to show displeasure (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). Civil powers were recovered in 1985 when the new constitution which allowed for presidential elections to be done by the people was enacted in 1988. Fernando Collor de Mello became the first president to be elected democratically by the Brazilians since 1961 before the military took over the government (Stepan & Alfred 1989).

The opposition

The opposition was aware that they would not topple the military government alone without the support of the elites (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). The pro-government party had more members than the opposition hence to get more; they had to make considerable concessions to win some over. The first move by the opposition was approaching the elites who previously supported the military. The opposition wing promised to nominate José Sarney as the vice-president if the elites defect to their camp (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). Sarney had held a senatorial seat in the past and was an avid supporter of the military government. Winning him over would make a great impact in winning over more people. Another compensation of the defectors was the provision of more cabinet slots and senior government posts for the ex-PDS if they gave the opposition more Electoral College votes (Arceneaux & Craig 2001).

The PDS defectors formed the Party of the Liberal Front (PFL), and they got prominent ministerial appointments such as the finance, education, mines and energy ministries (Binnendijk & Hans 1987). In total, the ex-PDS got six slots in the cabinet. They also got top state posts and headed big federal government agencies. These strategies worked because the defections made it possible for Tancredo Neves to be elected as the first civilian president. The military was not expecting this turn of events, and it became clear that this was the end of their rule (Binnendijk & Hans 1987).





The situation after the democratic transition

The military did not fight the changes enacted but accepted defeat. To evade being prosecuted, they enacted a law which prevented them from being imprisoned for torturing the civilians (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). The new leaders had played one part or another in the military government. The elites involved in the negotiations remained in power hence after the transition there was no noticeable difference (Binnendijk & Hans 1987). The traditional elites still control much of the economy and governance of Brazil.

After electing the first democratic president, Brazil had a lot of hope that things would change. People believed that the economic crisis would end abruptly, but things did not go as expected (Binnendijk & Hans 1987). There was much to be done by the new administration for a change to be felt. The political infrastructure of the military regime was still an impediment to gaining a broad democracy because they had the power to control some political and social aspects of the country. Sarney’s government could control the legislature and political parties because they lacked independence (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). Political parties and the legislature were weak and unable to influence things independently. The elites led the parties and ran them to suit their needs at the expense of the ordinary citizens. There was still limited civilian participation in government issues hence democracy was yet to be fully realized in the country (Arceneaux & Craig 2001).

The military continued having a say in many issues and would even control the Sarney's presidency (Binnendijk & Hans 1987). Sarney would be threatened of force sometimes by the military if they wanted to have their way. Because the military had a considerable number of ministers in support of their ideas they still would arm-twist the government. Military officers headed six out of the 26 ministries hence they still would influence the government's decisions. The military ministers even went against the creation of a defense ministry which would be headed by a civilian because they wanted to maintain some grip in the democratic government (Binnendijk & Hans 1987).

One time when the military showed their control of the political issues in Brazil was in November 1987 when there was a strike by maritime workers. Military personnel was deployed in major cities and prevented any type of demonstrations from taking place (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). They did the same with the oil refinery workers when they also wanted to strike. The military was in the forefront ensuring that Sarney’s term goes on even after he became incapable of saving the state from the crisis.

Sarney’s government advanced the idea of Tancredo of amending the constitution that was used by the military government to pave the way for National Constituent Assembly elections that has the ability and power to come up with, debate and enact a new democratically fit constitution (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996). To enhance the process of drafting the new constitution, Ulysses Guimaraes who was a prominent player in the resistance of the military rule became the chairman of the Constituent Assembly. The process of drafting began at the beginning of 1987 and ended in October 1988 (Martínez-Lara & Javier 1996).

In 1988, a new constitution was drafted, and the power was given back to the civilians. The new constitution contained the right to economic freedom, the freedom of speech, the right to have an independent public prosecutor and the right to health (Stepan & Alfred 1989). It also strengthened the local and state governments and enabled them to control their affairs. The new constitution was a major step towards the restoration of trust of the government by the citizens. It was a source of hope and laid the foundation of democracy in Brazil (Stepan & Alfred 1989).

Sarney had a difficult task of delivering the country from economic crisis it was in. To achieve that, he tried different strategies to make things work. Because the economy had stagnated and inflation was so high, Sarney devised acts such as Plano Cruzado 1 and Plano Cruzado 2 whose aim was to freeze prices, the government to control over prices and to transform the Brazilian currency (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995). However, increase in economic struggles in 1988 caused the government to do away with the payment of the Brazilian International Debt. This step led to a worse financial crisis in the country because international financial markets were terminated. The problems worsened, and inflation rose higher than it had ever been in 1990. The economic crisis and the high inflation made the government unpopular, and many people in the ruling party lost in the 1989 elections (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995).

Regarding political legislation, the democratic government had found the arbitrary and authoritarian legal order which was used by the military regime. Neves and Serney had to work hard to do away with the authoritarian legislation system and make it democratic (Stepan & Alfred 1989). However, these changes were not as easy as expected because the elites who were involved in the previous government became an obstacle. The first success was in May 1985 when the Congress paved the way for democratic elections. The Electoral College system was done away with so that president’s elections will be done directly. Another step taken by the Congress was abolishing indirect elections which were done to get a third of senators (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995). Moreover, mayors would now be elected directly by the people in all the state cities. Previously, the government considered the cities as areas of national security whereby the appointment of mayors was done by the state governors. Now things would change because people had a chance to elect mayors of their choice (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995).

The change in legislation made possible for 25% of Brazilians to be able to vote for their proffered candidates which was not the case during the military regime (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). Sublegenas were also abolished in the new laws. These was the sub-tickets system used by the military government whereby one party was allowed to present only three candidates to fill executive posts. It was a strategy by the military government to do away with many political parties and make their one-party agenda sail through smoothly. ARENA which was the largest and main party resulted from a merger of several small parties which were struggling to have a piece of the national cake (Arceneaux & Craig 2001). The threshold for party representation qualification in the Chamber of Deputies was reduced in 1985, and communist parties’ ban was lifted after being termed illegal in the past four decades.

Although all the above steps were meant to bring back institutional order in Brazil, there remained some authoritarian legislation influence. Because the ruling party wanted to keep their promise of a smooth and slow transition to the right wing, they scheduled the Constitution Convention in 1987. They did this to make the authoritarian legislation functional for a longer period. Therefore, the military government was controlling the country indirectly. The National Security Law was still functional and had not been modified (Pridham & Geoffrey 1995). The independence of the local and state governments was still compromised, and the representations were unevenly distributed. For instance, the North and Northeast states which had lower populations had a lot of representations just because they were PDS strongholds (Arceneaux & Craig 2001).





Conclusion

The transition from a military rule into a democratic governance in Brazil was challenging, but at the same time somehow painless. Despite the military having the capability and power to make things difficult for the transition, they chose to allow the country to change smoothly. Some of the major players in the transition include the political elites, the citizens, president Figueiredo, President Serney and his vice Serney, the civil society, the military, political parties, workers and many more. The political elites played a prominent role in the transition because they withdrew their support from the government which had failed and agitated for a change. Brazilians put a lot of pressure on the military government by staging demonstrations which made the government realize that things were not right. Although some members of the political party only saw the need for the shift after being promised posts in the new government, they facilitated the change in one way or another.

After the transition took place, the new leaders were still struggling to uphold democracy and do away with the authoritarian government. It was not an easy task because there were many forces trying to control the state and local governments which should be autonomous. The elites from the previous government were also a threat because they still wanted to be influencers of the how the government was run. The military did not stop their control immediately but continued arm-twisting the new democracy and making the process of democracy slower. However, the new leaders were determined to make a change no matter how slowly it could be. The economy was in bad shape when the authoritarian rule was ending, and this made it more difficult for the new government to convince the citizens that things were going to good. However, Brazil has undergone many changes since transition up to now.



References

Arceneaux, Craig L. Bounded missions: military regimes and democratization in the Southern Cone and Brazil. Pennsylvania State University Press, 2001.

Binnendijk, Hans, et al. Authoritarian regimes in transition. Foreign Service Institute, U.S. Dept. of State, 1987.

Martínez-Lara, Javier. Building democracy in Brazil: the politics of constitutional change, 1985-95. Macmillan in association with St. Antonys College, 1996.

Pridham, Geoffrey. Transitions to democracy: comparative perspectives from Southern Europe, Latin America and Eastern Europe. Dartmouth, 1995.

Stepan, Alfred C. Democratizing Brazil: problems of transition and consolidation. Oxford University Press, 1989.

Waisman, Carlos H., and Raanan Rein. Spanish and Latin American transitions to democracy. Sussex Academic Press, 2006.