Abstract
While numerous countries in post-authoritarian South America have annulled Amnesty Laws issued under authoritarian rule and punished officials involved in repressive organs, Brazil continues to favour impunity. This attitude has recently been confirmed by the Brazilian Supreme Court's decision to maintain the 1979 Amnesty Law granting de-facto impunity to violators of human rights during the military regime. The article considers this verdict within its historical context, and raises two questions which have previously attracted little attention: First, why has post-authoritarian Brazil processed the experience of the military regime so differently from its neighbouring countries, and what role did the Amnesty Law play in that difference? Second, what does this disinterest in punishment mean? This article concludes that one promising theory highlighted by political scientists - the low degree of par- ticipation in civil society in Brazil - cannot fully explain why the vast majority of Brazilians are not interested in punishment, as numerous citizens mobilized during the amnesty movement. It seems to imply that the heterogeneous anti-authoritarian alliance vanished once the Amnesty Law had been achieved. Another key finding is that the disinterest in punishment cannot be interpreted as moral sup- port for the military regime or a sanctioning of its human rights violations, as the amnesty debate in Brazil is more complex. Keywords: Brazil, amnesty, military regime, human rights, impunity.
Highlights
Amnesty Law play in that difference? Second, what does this disinterest in punishment mean? This article concludes that one promising theory highlighted by political scientists – the low degree of participation in civil society in Brazil – cannot fully explain why the vast majority of Brazilians are not interested in punishment, as numerous citizens mobilized during the amnesty movement
Online 2010b), thereby ruling out the possibility of indicting officials involved in human rights violations during the military regime in Brazil (1964-1985)
The Brazilian amnesty movement, which gained momentum from 1975 onwards, was one of the first social movements to demand the public acknowledgement of human rights violations committed between 1964 and 1985.4 The increasing press coverage of human rights violations from 1975 onwards, coupled with international denunciations following the assassination of the journalist, Vladimir Herzog, contributed to the growing public support enjoyed by the amnesty movement (Santos, Teles, and Teles 2009, 162)
Summary
The military regime in Brazil (1964-1985) and the ensuing transition to democracy were distinct from other authoritarian regimes in Latin America in several respects. It is undeniable that the rates of economic growth were historic, and that the myth took root among large sections of the Brazilian population, contributing to a positive perception of the military regime in retrospect All of these differences contributed to the retention of significant power by the armed forces in Brazil after democratization in comparison to other South American countries (Hunter 1995, 426), in contrast to Argentina. The debacle of the 1974 elections lends further weight to the latter position: while the government party, the Alliance for National Renovation (Aliança de Renovação Nacional, Arena), lost a substantial amount of votes, the opposition party, the Brazilian Democratic Movement (Movimento Democrático Brasileiro, MDB), won a clear victory (Lamounier 1980) Files from the former intelligence service, the National Information Service (SNI), opinion poll surveys, and weekly summaries of letters sent to President Geisel held by the Geisel Archive in Rio provide hints that levels of dissatisfaction among the Brazilian public increased during the 1970s. Montero (2005, 20) expresses it, transition was a combination of government-initiated gradual political opening and popular mobilization
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary 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 callMore From: European Review of Latin American and Caribbean Studies | Revista Europea de Estudios Latinoamericanos y del Caribe
Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
