Ever since attaining its independence from Portugal on September 7, 1822, Brazil has seldom enjoyed any prolonged spell as a true democracy. In fact, Brazil’s longest period as a truly democratic state began a few years ago in 1985 after transitioning from a military government. The period after independence has been dotted with a monarchy; which was one of the few in the Americas, and a series of military coups that the country became synonymous with in the 20th century. A multiplicity of both domestic and external factors coalesced to create political instability in the country with a view to stall its democratization process (Smith, 50). However, Brazil has made considerable efforts in re-instituting democracy since the fall of the military regime.
Brazil was never founded on any democratic ideals; it became a monarch as soon as it gained its independence. Its first emperor was Pedro I who took over power after declaring the secession of Brazil from the Portuguese empire. His reign lasted for only nine years as he abdicated the throne in 1931. Reasons for his abdication have been cited as his liberal stances that did not endear him to the Brazil’s landed elites. The landed elites played a primary role in the socio-economic life of the empire. While the country was still Portugal’s colony, it did not receive, as much attention from its colonial masters as it was considered less profitable as compared to Portugal’s other ventures. As a result, there was little rule of law which attracted social outfits and pirates. To resolve this, the Portuguese crown divided the country into strips of land that were then placed under the control of Portuguese elites.
Despite inefficiencies in the land system, the landed elites had immense power and as such, it was the failure to co-operate with them that pressured Pedro I into abdicating the thrown. He handed power over to his son Emperor Pedro II who was still a minor. His young age effectively meant that the country was ruled by senior court officials rather than the emperor himself. When Pedro II came of age, he opted to move to a more representative parliamentary system. Such a move did not go down well with senior court and military officials who had hitherto entrenched their own parallel system of government. The infighting coupled with a series of regional wars as well as pressure from the British government to end slavery ultimately led to the overthrow of Pedro II in 1889 in a military coup.
The military was headed by General Fonseca, who became the first president of the Republic of Brazil. He stepped down from office soon after political infighting began. A new constitution was passed in 1891, which recognized Brazil as a constitutional state. It marked the onset of the old republican constitution. However, despite the constitution proclaiming Brazil a democratic state, the same was not being exemplified in the national politics. Indeed, the political infighting that took place at the time was between those politicians that favored limiting presidential powers versus those that favored an all-powerful presidency.
Election malpractices became common. The weakness of the system was exploited by the oligarchs to entrench themselves in Brazil’s political system (Smith, 78). The landed elites made up a huge chunk of the country’s oligarchy, and they continued to hold immense lobbying powers. In fact, most of them ended up being voted into Brazil’s Congress and were instrumental in initiating political efforts that were geared towards extending the powers of the presidency; a tradition that had begun as soon as General Fonseca took over the country’s presidency.
An illustration of the shrinking democratic space at the time was the marked reduction in the number of voters despite the country being declared a democracy, which was in contrast to other parts of the Americas when the number of voters was rising. The oligarchs harbored the fear of an increasing number of the electorate. It was because most of them were of Portuguese origin while most of the probable voters were former slaves, which they saw as a threat to their continued well-being in the event of a popular uprising. Consequently, over and above curtailing the democratic space, the political elite also resorted to increased militarization that could intervene in the case of such an eventuality.
Brazil’s old republic continued to exist up until 1930. This year was marked by an uprising that led to the deposing of President Washington Luis through a coup. The coup was led by Getulio Vargas, who would then ascend to the presidency. To have an understanding of the factors that led to the coup, it is critical to look at the country’s political state at the time. A majority of the elites were found in the rich states of Sao Paulo and Minas Gerais. Due to the immense power that the oligarchs in these states held, they had the ability to determine the country’s leadership structure hence power revolved around the two states. However, in 1929, the elites in Sao Paulo dishonored the unwritten power-sharing deal hence the resulting coup. The success of the coup was because of the army’s support of the same. The 1929 Great Depression that began in the U.S also played a role in diverging public support away from President Washington, which created a basis for the rebellion (Smith, 113).
Once in power, President Vargas repealed the constitution of the Old Brazil Republic and henceforth ruled by decree. Perhaps the biggest benefit that arose out of the coup was that it managed to dismantle the state oligarchs. However, in 1932, there were calls for a return to constitutionalism through Constitutionalist revolution. Because of the pressure, a new constitution was promulgated in 1934 but existed for only a short period of three years. Despite the constitution’s short life span, it was instrumental in shaping up Brazil’s modern day constitution as it granted equal voting and other political rights to all without discrimination. It also contained the bill of rights, which is an important element of any constitution in a democratic state.
Constitutionalism and the rule of law were soon to be overturned even after the passage of the new constitution, as President Vargas unilaterally ushered in a new constitution in 1937. He did this in disguise to prevent the occurrence of a coup. Vargas’ constitution granted him immense emergency powers. It limited the powers of the Brazilian Congress and its judiciary while also dissolving political parties. It effectively returned the country to an authoritarian regime.
During this time, Brazil’s relationship with the U.S, which was emerging as a global power especially after the Second World War, was strained. It was because of President Vargas’ nationalist policies that restricted foreign capital, especially from the U.S into the country. Vargas was consequently pushed out of power by Eurico Dutra; a move that many believe that opine must have had America’s hand. In President Dutra’s era a fifth, constitution was passed in 1946, which restored all democratic rights for the Brazilian people that had been revoked by Vargas’ constitution. Getulio Vargas returned to power once more before committing suicide in 1954.
However, no event would have such a profound effect on Brazil’s democratization process as the 1964 military coup. The coup credits its success to the implicit support of the U.S through the provision of arms and intelligence services (Smith, 92). Because of the cold war, America had an interest in ensuring that a regime aligned to capitalist ideology was in power in Brazil. This was regardless of the means that were used to get into power; in Brazil’s case, a military coup overturned the rule of the law. At the same time, the military and business elites saw a need to overthrow the then president Joao Goulart. It was because of his conservative policies that had not only seen the country become increasingly aligned to communist ideology but had also led Brazil’s economy to the verge of collapse.
While the new rulers under the military regime promised the people return to democracy and constitutionalism, it became clear that their actions on the ground and in the political scene did not correspond. The military president at the time Castelo Blanco despite having the goodwill to return the country to civilian rule did not have the requisite support from the military and business elite. In the years following the rise of the military government, the country experienced rapid economic expansion despite the continued suppression of people’s democratic rights. Any form of dissent was often punished through extreme torture while extra-judicial killings became the norm rather than the exception. To appease those calling for a return to constitutionalism, the military regime drafted a new constitution. However, rather than restore political rights for the people, it further restricted them.
During the 1980s, Brazil’s economy began to weaken which served to lower the legitimacy of the military government. The economy was characterized by high inflation, high unemployment rates, and GDP contraction. The poor prospect of the economy created increased agitation for a return to democracy. It was illustrated by the mass action in which millions of Brazilians went out for rallies in the major cities calling for an end to the military regime in 1984 (Green, 73). The military regime yielded to pressure, which saw General Figueiredo serve as the last military president. The military regime mandated that an electoral college be formed to elect the president through which they hoped they could influence the choice of the country’s next president to no avail.
An opposition candidate Tancredo Neves triumphed in the Electoral College vote and hence became Brazil’s first civilian president since 1964. He, however, passed away before his inauguration and his vice president-elect Jose Sarney took the presidency instead. In 1988, a new constitution that restored political and other civil rights was passed. It also changed the electoral system from one based on the Electoral College to one in which Brazilians directly vote for their president. The country has since then adhered to democratic principles.
In conclusion, the journey to democracy in Brazil has by no means been a smooth one. The country was not anchored on any democratic principles since it was a monarchy. The military has certainly played a huge role in delaying the process of democratization in Brazil as evidenced by the numerous coups it has undergone since its independence. The 1964 coup that lasted up to 1984 was by far the longest period that the country underwent without democratic governance. The societal elites in the country also played a major role in the democratization process in Brazil by seeking to block progressive reform. The process has not exclusively been the enclave of domestic forces alone since foreign interests especially as illustrated during the Cold War had an impact on the democratization process. Ultimately, it is everybody’s hope that the current democratic space experienced in Brazil will continue to prevail.
Works Cited
Green, James N. We Cannot Remain Silent: Opposition to the Brazilian Military Dictatorship in the United States. Durham and London: Duke University Press, 2010. Print.
Smith, Joseph. Brazil and the United States: Convergence and Divergence. Athens, University of Georgia Press; 2010. Print.
Smith, Joseph. A history of Brazil. Newyork, Routledge, 2014. Print.
