Abstract
This article deals with the disputed terminology used to refer to the Brazilian military regime (1964–1985). On one side is the traditional “military dictatorship” nomenclature, which places the armed forces at the center of the political system during the period in question. Conversely, the more recent “civil-military dictatorship” terminology notes that the regime depended on civilian allies in business and government, as well as popular support, throughout its existence. My entry point is a heated 2012 debate between journalist Pedro Pomar and the radical art collective Coletivo Zagaia. I explore how new social actors that emerged after redemocratization have become central to the struggle over human rights in Brazil and, more specifically, how the dictatorship is remembered in the present. This debate among scholars, activists, bloggers, and journalists is fundamentally about memory, accountability, and, I argue, the quality of Brazilian democracy today.
Highlights
Este artigo se trata da terminologia disputada usada para se referir ao regime militar brasileiro (1964–1985)
Historian Steve Stern’s (2004, xx) observation about postdictatorial Chile holds true in some measure for Brazil: “In the struggle for hearts and minds ... the memory question became strategic—politically, morally, existentially—both during and after the dictatorship” as a means of establishing “political and cultural legitimacy.”
The year 2012 in Brazil was marked in other ways by an intensive debate regarding the legacy of the dictatorship
Summary
This article deals with the disputed terminology used to refer to the Brazilian military regime (1964–1985). I explore how new social actors that emerged after redemocratization have become central to the struggle over human rights in Brazil and, how the dictatorship is remembered in the present This debate among scholars, activists, bloggers, and journalists is fundamentally about memory, accountability, and, I argue, the quality of Brazilian democracy today. Before turning to the argument between Pomar and Zagaia, I present the stakes of this debate by briefly reviewing the dispute over terms as it has played out within the scholarly literature in recent years This will provide the context necessary to make sense of the exchange at the heart of this article and, to judge the claims made by either side. The Debate over Brazil’s “Civil”-Military Dictatorship of other consequential events that occurred in 2012, most importantly the start of investigations by the National Truth Commission (Comissão Nacional da Verdade, or CNV) in May and the São Paulo state truth commission in March, both entities dedicated to producing official (and definitive) accounts of the regime’s abuses
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
