The idea that the Brazilian military dictatorship, which began in 1964, was a mild and mild political regime was born as a narrative to remove responsibility from those responsible for the crimes of the dictatorship. As a consequence, there was no break with the past, which allowed for the continuation of the apology for torture and dictatorship in the attitudes, for example, of former president Jair Bolsonaro (PL).
“The form of transition that Brazil made from dictatorship to democracy was not a rupture. It was a transition completely coordinated and controlled by the military themselves and, therefore, they remained in control of this narrative with the justification of undermining the country’s governability. This convinces practically all presidents, in a way even President Dilma, during their democratic governments”, says Eugênia Gonzaga, Federal Public Prosecutor and former president of the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances (CEMDP), in an interview with Brazil in fact.
For Gonzaga, “it was only possible for a President of the Republic to say what Bolsonaro said because of all this parsimony with issues related to the dictatorship. It was thought that the dictatorship could be set aside”.
She points out that in 2010, the Federal Supreme Court (STF) voted against the 1979 Amnesty Law, which pardoned state representatives accused of practicing acts of torture during the military regime. “They literally walked over the bodies, the unburied bodies, the families that lost their children, their loved ones, thinking they could have a democracy after that.” Read the full interview below:
Brasil de Fato – What explains the idea that the Brazilian military dictatorship was a “dictabranda”? From what elements was this discourse produced?
Eugenia Gonzaga – The form of transition that Brazil made from dictatorship to democracy was not a rupture. It was a transition completely coordinated and controlled by the military themselves and, therefore, they remained in control of this narrative with the justification of undermining the country’s governability. This convinces virtually all presidents, in a way even President Dilma, during their democratic governments.
This story that the Brazilian dictatorship was the one that killed the least on the continent begins with the law that created the Commission for Political Deaths and Disappearances, which admits only a few deaths, since there was no longer any way to deny it. Certain families exerted a lot of political pressure, they ended up admitting that there was death, but they did not admit why these people died. The reasons for these deaths were never said.
They admitted that only those people who were connected with political movements died. To get recognition, families had to prove that that person had acted, for example, in the resistance movements that existed during the dictatorship. This is a completely different criterion from the criteria of our neighbors. None counted among the dead only people who were militants. The other countries counted all the people who died because of that dictatorial government.
Today, if we are going to talk about a number of deaths in the country, we are going to talk about at least 10 thousand people. The Brazilian dictatorship was not soft at all. The amnesty commission has already compensated more than 30,000 people who, individually, were proven to have been victims of direct torture, in addition to situations of indirect torture. Dictatorship was widespread. Every police station in the country felt entitled “to preserve the motherland” to do anything. So everyone tortured. The damage to rights was generalized and this remains to this day.
How does this “ditabranda” speech relate to the indigenous genocide at the time?
When we talk about at least 10,000 deaths, we are already taking into account that among these, at least, there are around 8,000 indigenous people. This is a number calculated by the World Indigenous Council and included in the reports attached to the National Truth Commission (CNV) report.
Unfortunately, indigenous genocide has always happened in this country and, during the dictatorship, it was one of the moments when it intensified. Even the National Truth Commission itself found that there are orders to take the necessary measures if there was indigenous resistance during the construction of the Transamazon Highway.
But there aren’t that many records. Nobody knows what happened in that country during that period. It is a story that still needs to be very well investigated and told. We understand that this was a chapter of the National Truth Commission that maintained the criterion of political militancy and, therefore, ends up endorsing this number of 434 deaths. But it leaves open this need for continuity of research and that is what we need to do at the present time.
How does this “dictabranda” speech and omission of a significant number of deaths relate to the current scenario of denialism and relativization of historical facts?
It’s all interconnected. I think it was only possible for a President of the Republic to say what Bolsonaro said because of all this parsimony with issues related to the dictatorship. It was thought that the dictatorship could be set aside. An agreement was made. It is written in the decision of the Federal Supreme Court of 2010 that there was an agreement in 1979 that, in order to resume democracy, we would leave aside the crimes committed by the agents of the dictatorship.
They literally walked over the bodies, the unburied bodies, the families that lost their children, their loved ones, thinking they could have a democracy after that.
Long before Bolsonaro thought about becoming a candidate, he already practiced acts of apology for torture and dictatorship, but he was never questioned about it. Nothing was made. He practiced numerous legal acts that would lead to the loss of the mandate of President of the Republic, but this was not done again. And it got where it got, which culminated in January 8th.
Do you believe that this movement of denying the size of the dictatorship and these effects also spread to other powers, since in 2010 the Federal Supreme Court had the chance to review the Amnesty Law, but decided to maintain it?
The judiciary is full of people belonging to social classes that supported the dictatorship. I dare say that for many people of this type it was not only “ditabranda” but it was “ditaboa”, because they profited from it. The press, for most of the period, collaborated with the narrative of the dictatorship.
In a land that has no law, but has authoritarianism, no one is safe, because you may think you are not a victim of persecution, but tomorrow you could be. If the laws that those defenders of the 8th of January wanted to be in force in the country, those who are now in prison would not have any rights. They would see in jails the same posters that the politically persecuted at the time saw: “Against the homeland, there are no rights”.
Can Bolsonaro’s conduct, such as the attempt to extinguish the Special Commission on Political Deaths and Disappearances, be explained by the fact that Brazil never elucidated the crimes committed during the dictatorship? What motivates this behavior and this discourse? What’s the interest?
I think it was really a policy of disrupting everything that guaranteed this social state of rights. The commission is a state entity created by law. Government enters, government leaves, the commission is there. There is no exchange because the government changed as in the ministries, for example. And that bothered me a lot. So how was the way to thwart the commission? It was to put there a majority of people who were against the objectives of the commission.
Thereafter, no more bodies were sought. No further death certificates were issued. No one else was recognized as a victim of the dictatorship. So the commission has been paralyzed ever since.
They also found that a loophole in the law dictates the production and delivery of a final report when it has finished fulfilling its purposes. They rushed to do this in the month of December. They approved the final report on the spur of the moment, in a hastily convened meeting.
How can it be said that this commission fulfilled its purposes, if among these 434 we have at least 160 bodies that have not been located? We don’t have the death certificates for all these people. Even so, they decreed that the commission had served its purpose.
Still, any and all commission decisions must be ratified by a presidential decree. Approval of the report would need to be ratified by the President of the Republic, who did not do so. On December 30th, he left for the United States. But the next day, a decree was issued approving the report, but without a signature. In my view, this act of extinction is completely null and, therefore, I think it is very easy for the current government to redeploy the commission and nominate the members.
There is the expectation of recreating the Special Commission for the Dead and Missing. How do you, who chaired the commission, believe that work should be done from now on, in view of the dismantling that was implemented during the Bolsonaro government? In addition to the work within the Special Commission on the Dead and Disappeared, how can the Lula government and should act in relation to the denialism that exists in relation to the dictatorship from the Armed Forces, for example?
We expect very clear signals from the Presidency of the Republic. The Armed Forces are very important bodies, but they need to collaborate, deliver these documents that tell this true story. These documents exist.
We had an auction of a notarized statement of a person who participated in the acts of murder of Stuart Angel, which ended up in the hands of an auctioneer. This document was signed in a notary. How did that get there? How did that end up at auction?
These documents need to be delivered by the military, by retirees who still occasionally have this type of thing. Families can no longer be denied the right to know exactly what happened. I think this has to be a priority for the government in relation to all kinds of disappearances.
It has to be a clear message for these serious injuries from the past and the serious injuries present, because people continue to disappear today. Disappearance is still a way of concealing state crimes. Let’s not forget now about the murder of Bruno and Dom. It was a situation set up for the disappearance of the body. There must be a clear policy of memory of truth, of preservation of evidence. For this, very clear signaling is needed, especially from the executive branch.
Any news on the commission re-creation?
The information I have from the Ministry of Human Rights is that the commission’s restitution decree is ready. I imagine that with this trip to China and the health problems of the President of the Republic, the matter is among the next issues to be resolved.
This year there will be the third Walk of Silence for Victims of State Violence. What is the expectation?
Our neighboring countries carry out the so-called walks of silence, in which people take to the streets, usually on the day of their military coups, taking candles, photos and flowers to honor the memory of those people who died as a result of these acts of barbarism. In Brazil, we took this journey starting in 2019, it had to be interrupted due to the pandemic, but we are now going to do its third edition. It will take place this Sunday, April 2nd, starting at 3 pm, in Ibirapuera.
It is a “discommemoration” of the military coup in Brazil. From the first walk, I found it impressive that people left letters and prayed. I mentioned this to a family member of a missing person and she said: “Eugênia, we don’t have a tombstone, we don’t have a place to mourn”. So in this type of opportunity, people take the opportunity to put their spirituality out, to elevate their thinking, to speak on behalf of the person.
Editing: Rodrigo Durão Coelho
