Bolsonaro and the Brazilian Military Dictatorship: A History of Anti-Democratic Attacks

Photo courtesy of  Marcos Corrêa/PR

“Today is Liberty Day,” said the far-right Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro on March 31st of 2020. President Bolsonaro was referring to the anniversary of the coup that installed a military dictatorship in Brazil. March 31st of 1964 was the day that the Brazilian population was supposedly freed from a realistically non-existent communist threat, thanks to a coup led by the country’s Armed Forces. This coup installed an illegitimate, antidemocratic government that promoted violations of human rights and authoritarianism and lasted for two decades. But to President Bolsonaro, this day represents freedom. To him—and to many of his voters—the dictatorship was the ideal political project that he wished he had the liberty to implement today. 

Despite Bolsonaro’s insistence in affirming that the military regime was not in fact a dictatorship, the opposite is the perception of historians, many of whom have worked to uncover the atrocities committed by the military government between 1964 and 1985. According to Brazil’s National Truth Committee, over 400 people were murdered or went missing by the hands of the dictatorial government, and over 20,000 were tortured. Some other deeds of the regime included closing the National Congress to annul the power of opposing politicians and imposing censorship to the press and artistic production.

The support for the military dictatorship is not a new phenomenon in Bolsonaro’s discourse. Throughout his entire political trajectory, he has spoken in favor of the regime on several occasions, praising many things including the torturing and killing of political prisoners. In fact, Bolsonaro has gone so far as to state that he believes the regime’s antidemocratic and murderous practices were not enough. In a 1999 interview, the then congressmen stated that the Brazilian political scenario would only change through “doing the work that the military regime had not done.” His argument was that the only viable mechanism of change was “killing around 30,000 people” in a civil war, starting with the president in charge at the time.

A more recent shocking example was Bolsonaro’s speech, again as a congressman, when voting President Dilma Roussef out of office in 2016, just two years before he was elected president. In his vote, he evoked the memory of Carlos Alberto Brilhante Ustra, the military officer who tortured President Roussef when she was a political prisoner during the dictatorial period, calling him “the dread of Dilma Roussef.” 

The blatant pro-dictatorship discourse did not stop Bolsonaro from being elected: over 57 million Brazilians voted for him in the 2018 election, awarding the current president with 55.2% of the valid votes. To many Brazilians, Bolsonaro’s antidemocratic remarks were not absurd enough to be a deal-breaker and get them to vote for someone else. To some, in fact, Bolsonaro’s affinity with authoritarianism was more of a pro than a con, as there was finally a candidate that enabled them to proudly show off their own support for the dictatorship. Today, Bolsonaro is still popular among roughly 30% of the population, even after two years of massive failures as chief of state. Throughout this time, he has continued to praise the military regime and hinting at his ideal, antidemocratic way to rule the country. In April of 2020, he made an appearance at a rally in favor of an anti-constitutional military intervention in the government. Hundreds of his supporters were there protesting in favor of the closure of both Congress and the Supreme Court. 

The rise of Bolsonaro, as well as the continuous support he gets, represents an issue that has existed in Brazilian society long before he ever ran for president: we as a nation do not have democracy as a top priority. The support for democracy is not a non-negotiable element when it comes to the candidates people chose to vote for. Instead, many are willing to let go of it too easily, falling into the same trap that numerous Brazilians fell for in 1964: believing it is worth it to give up on democratic values in exchange for “protection against the left.” This did not end well in the 1960s, and does not look promising today. 

The disregard for democracy even after a profoundly traumatic experience such as being under a dictatorship is symptomatic of the fact that we have not come to terms with our antidemocratic past. Brazil does not currently have specific legislation that prohibits praising the Military Dictatorship. In very specific circumstances, those who do it can be framed by the National Security Law, which is a very broad piece of legislation. However, this law does not directly mention the dictatorship at any point, and was in fact created during the dictatorial period. This unwillingness to address our past represents a contrast with other nations that display clear efforts to reconcile with turbulent histories and to act differently going forward. In Brazil, if a person praises the despicable aspects of our past, they can still become president. 

Since we have not learned to value democracy yet, our young democratic institutions are fragile. The scenario in which they finally cave in after continuous attacks is not impossible to picture. After all, a great deal of the population is not particularly invested in defending them. If a more concrete attempt to dismantle our democracy does come, will we have enough people willing to fight back?

Camila Braga is a staff writer for CPR and a first-year student at Columbia College, planning on majoring in Political Science and Latin American and Caribbean Studies. A proud Brazilian, Camila is passionate about her country’s culture and history.