History of Military Coup in Brazil - Essay Example

History of Military Coup in Brazil Proponents call it a revolution while opponents consider it a coup. Whichever terminology one uses, a coup or revolution often results from a desire of citizens to see changes in their country. In Brazil, the Brazilian military forcefully took over the government in 1964. For over twenty years, the military inhumanely oppressed any subversive civilians that were against its policies. The legitimacy of horrifying events that occurred in the society during the period has not been fully uncovered, because both the wealthy and underprivileged underwent a torturous process for any of their crimes. This paper explores the history of military coup in Brazil, its causes, and end. The first coup in Brazil dates back to 15 November 1889 when a republican military forcibly removed Pedro from power. Through an arrangement of military advancement, the leader of the coup, General Deodoro da Fonseca, became Brazil’s first president. The government was largely a constitutional democracy, in which the government observed communal rule and listened to the majority (Pion 1). The abundance of sugar stabilized the Brazilian economy during this period. The country expanded exponentially as Europeans relocated to the country to exploit the existing resources (Breneman 1). Even so, another military coup in 1930 brought some changes to the economic and political economy that the government had established in Brazil. Getulio Vargas assumed presidency in Brazil through a military coup in 1930. Vargas ruled Brazil for twenty-four years before passing on in 1954. He advanced Brazil’s economic situation during his leadership that was riddled with manipulation of citizens to gain their loyalty. He introduced categorization of workers into professional corporations. In the 1950s, the military leader furthered development through exports, which strengthened Brazil’s position in the global economy. In addition, the government encouraged nationalism, which saw different regions in the country battle for supremacy and national superiority. The military started a domestic revolutionary warfare in which it exempted enemies of Brazil from its activities. The United States encouraged this movement and asked Brazilians to fortify their nation. However, this seclusion negatively affected the economy and there were persistent riots by the working class. The Brazilian president, Joao Goulart (1961-1964), instituted economic and social reforms that were regressive and failed to address the economic disparity and decline in the country (Breneman 1). Apart from that, the military did not appreciate his idea to alienate them from government activities and formulation of governmental policies. The military withstood this for some years, and through the support of the United States, they finally decided to take charge in the form of a coup in 1964. The 1964 coup was politically motivated. Adjacent countries to Brazil, specifically Cuba, fell to a socialist revolution around the same time, and America did not see this as progressive development. They were against communism and its spread across the western side of the continent. In consequence, the United States coalesced with the Brazilian military to take over the government before it embraced communism, and before it spread to other American regions. Politics played a major role in the coup, and in consequence, the society saw it as revolutionary. The coup was a military intervention, unlike the usual process of election in which citizens chose leaders (Codato 6). Capitalism and unfavorable economic policies were another reason for the coup (Breneman 1). Economic factors played a significant role in the 1964 revolution. Citizens were unsatisfied with the oppressive government policies that focused on capitalism. There was no room for economic progress in the country, and most citizens were largely poor. The country’s president preferred nationalist policies that focused on internal investments rather than multinational investments. There was no foreign capital coming into the country, and international relations were pitiable. Conflicts between the working class and upper class threatened the capitalist government. There was an emphasis on social programs, which empowered the working class. Unfortunately, this threatened the upper class, who relied on capitalism to retain and make their wealth. Through the social programs, Brazilian working class formed trade unions that demanded better wages and working conditions for its members (Pion 1). The military saw this as a threat to the capitalistic dependence the country had formed, and in consequence, they started the coup. The military saw it as a necessary measure to prevent the formation of any groups that would trigger serious losses for national and multinational capital. The United State’s international interests and Brazilian national interests called for a military coup. Brazil depended on an economic tripod of international capital, national capital, and private national capital to further its development goals. Without any of the three constituents in the tripod, Brazil was at risk of facing developmental challenges. A communism regime would lock out international investors, and the country would have to rely only on national capital for development. While some, who consider the event as a coup, saw this as detrimental to Brazil’s development, opponents, who were in support of the event considered it as a necessary revolution. Evidently, both economics and politics came into play to orchestrate the coup. Multinational investment was necessary for Brazil to fortify its capitalistic government. The military took over power to prevent such a situation because the government seemed to support the new social groups that advanced communism in the country. They set up an authoritarian government to propagate their policies, and ironically, they saw it as democracy. To them, they were saving the country from ruin that would result from lack of economic development. It was a political decision that eventually toppled the government. Several dynamic events happened during the rule of the military. Similarly, various actors emerged in response to the events that occurred in vibrant succession. Remarkably, the government in fact transited from one military government to another during the period of the coup, and this is perceptibly among the most significant political moments in Brazilian history (Breneman 1). Unfortunately, the military was not versed in most economic policies, and they had to rely on politicians to formulate policies to govern the economy. The new policies were repressive, which triggered civilian unrest and vehement public opposition. Resultantly, the military’s response to the civilian opposition triggered more unrest in the country and the government became more repressive. There was a cycle of repression as oppressive governments replaced each other. The period 1965-1968 saw the consolidation of the machinery of repression. The government made considerable investments to develop and stabilize the country in order to attract foreign investors. It repressed all forms of opposition so that the country would appear stable to the outside community. Repression was mainly because the government cut their wages in the quest of rewarding national elites who were private investors in the country. Although the United States supported the military, they still advocated for a democratic form of leadership (Green 259). Opposition parties were unsure on whether they should participate in the military controlled elections, and more to that, candidates who were seen as opposing the revolution were barred from participation in national elections. Opposition also came from student movements, labor unions, guerrilla insurgency, and the Catholic Church. Opposition to military repression intensified in the period 1966-1967. Although the second military president, Costa e Silva, tried to humanize the revolution, there were politicians with selfish interests who had other ill motive ideas. The duristas put in power one of their candidates after the president fell ill, and later instituted oppressive policies, which gave the president more powers (Breneman 1). For instance, they outlawed criticism of government policies and military leaders. Reports about the progress of student movements and labor unions were disallowed from the media. Even so, the government instituted a beneficial economic model that monitored wage controls and encouraged inducements for international investment. From 1969 to 1974, repression and torture intensified, but there was an economic miracle. There was a decrease in inflation and international bodies increased financial support to Brazil. Even so, student movements and labor unions still showed unrest, and guerilla groups perpetrated terrorism attacks. As a countermeasure, the government intensified torturous tactics to quell and discourage citizens from such activities (Green 143). The authorities saw an open political system as a hindrance to economic growth, and quelled opposition in the name of stability. Technocrats sought stabilization to economic development through foreign investments at the expense of national development. Underdeveloped regions in Brazil faced the brunt of the new policies, as there was a reduction in their development allocations (Breneman 1). Slight economic growth and brutal torture pacified most of the movements, unions, and guerilla groups. 1974-1985 saw significant democratization and liberalization after the castelistas gained power. Opposition forces reemerged in the quest of liberalization as the previous oppressive military regime lost its grip on power. Even so, Brazil’s economic growth policies were not sustainable, and this, coupled with the world oil crisis, meant that they lost foreign aid and financial support from the United States. Legitimacy characterized the final period of the military government (Codato 2). Oppression only reduced, but it was still used to delineate the social classes and advance selfish government motives that undermined human rights and maximum economic advancement. National support for the opposition parties intensified in the 1980s and direct election reintroduced. Fernando Collor de Mello won elections as president in 1989, and this saw an end to the oppressive military governments (Breneman 1). The contemporary Brazil still experiences economic inequality and unequal financial distribution among its classes. Even so, there are several advancements such as increase in tourist attractions and heavy involvement of foreign investors. It recently hosted the FIFA World Cup competition, which was a significant boost to its political and economic presence in the global stage. The pursuit of democratic organization and integrity continues, as seen in the demonstrations and violent protests that happened before and during the World Cup. Works Cited Breneman, Tracy. Brazils Authoritarian Experience: 1964-1985; A Study Of A Conflict. Conflict Research Consortium. 1995. Codato, Adriano. A political history of the Brazilian transition from military dictatorship to democracy. Rev. Sociol. Polit. vol.2 no.se Curitiba 2006. Green, James. We Cannot Remain Silent: Opposition to the Brazilian Military Dictatorship in the United States. Duke University Press, Jun 11, 2010. Print. Pion, David. Military Dictatorships of Brazil and the Southern Cone. World Scholar: Latin America & the Caribbean, 2011. Read More