Historian Daniel Aarão Reis estimates that, despite the strong representation of Bolsonarism in Congress and the sympathy of the center, a “wide, general and unrestricted” amnesty will hardly be approved.
UFF professor, he believes, however, that perhaps there is a compromise, with feather reduction. A very positive effect of the trial of the coup plot indicates Aarão Reis, is that “the certainty of impunity, which seems to have been important in the 1964 coup, has now been shaken.”
Is it possible to say that Brazilian democracy showed strength by condemning a former president and military for coup attempt?
The unprecedented judgment and condemnation is an important aspect, especially with our history of scams and amnesties. But ideas are only overcome by ideas, not legal convictions. It would be a mistake to take the trial as proof that the scammer ideas were defeated. I warned the problem of underestimating the far right, which has been strengthened in the country since 2013, initially underground. Democracy is one of the few regimes that allow its enemies to comment. This gives it basic instability, although it can also be grounded to a greater or lesser extent.
To what extent can an amnesty, such as defended by Bolsonaro allies, increase or reduce this instability?
A fundamental aspect of the 1964 coup, which helped dehydrated by the João Goulart government, was that the defense of democracy was not rooted in the popular masses. Today there is a crisis of confidence with political stablishment. Reducing the 2026 electoral debate to the amnesty would be to ban any discussion on how to extend these democratic values to the life of the common Brazilian, such as bringing this stablishment closer to real life.
Continues after advertising
Does the correlation of forces in Congress today differ from what led to an amnesty to the military in 1979?
Bolsonarism has a strong representation in Parliament, but I do not believe in a broad, general and unrestricted amnesty. A very positive effect of this judgment is that the certainty of impunity, which seems to have been important in the 1964 coup, has now been shaken. Perhaps it comes to a middle ground, with a reduction in penalties. Our center is also very affected by this kind of conciliation, and I believe the Trump government’s pressures will intensify.
Can the possible retaliation of the US government impact the Brazilian electoral scenario in 2026?
Continues after advertising
Trump’s pressure generated a unifying motto for the left and the Lula administration, which is the nationalist speech. We can say that this is a “gift”, making an analogy with the way Lenin described, in 1914, the entrance of the Russian Empire in the First War. But the point is that nationalism is a hydra of many heads. If you do not combine it well with democracy, it can generate dangerous results, and I still do not see this combination in nationalist discourses against Trump.
What is that risk?
Nationalist doctrines can close doors to a more plural speech, nullify the contradictory, as we saw in the US during the Vietnam War, or in Venezuela and the dictatorship of Cuba. But they can also lead to democratic regimes, as happened after the fight against Nazism in Europe. In this speech of “who is not in favor, he is a traitor of the homeland”, worries me who interprets the designs of the homeland. Democracy ensures that each one puts their interpretations.
Continues after advertising
The Lord is critical of the so -called “theory of the two demons”, which gives a similar weight to left and right radicalisms in the events that led to the 1964 coup. Do you see the possibility that a similar view arises about the current coup plot?
Minister Luiz Fux’s vote tried to bring an idea that the coup conspiracy was not that serious, and that it was equivalent to other episodes, such as the 2013 demonstrations, a movement that began on the left and then was taken by the far right. This reasoning can be resumed tomorrow to justify repressions to social movements. It is necessary to know how to distinguish people who want to destroy the system from those who want to reformulate important aspects of the system. The US Black Movement in the 1960s often infringed laws that prevented manifestations.
Is the fact that military chiefs have remained a state of defense, as they intended Bolsonaro and allies against the outcome of the election, shows an advance in the role of the Armed Forces?
Continues after advertising
The 1988 Constitution is full of concessions, introduced as knives in its body, and one of them is this article 142, which leaves a lot of things in the interpretation of military commanders. The ideal was that this article would be modified. It must be remembered that the vast majority of military conspirators of this plot were young at the time of the promulgation of the Constitution. That is, they created themselves in the New Republic, but with radically undemocratic perspectives.
