The law office of yesteryear gives way to a rocking chair and a bookshelf filled with books. “The fact that you are here today, that I am not working, is proof that I have really stopped”, says the 85-year-old criminal lawyer, smoking his pipe.
About to win a , to be released this Thursday (12), the former Minister of Justice intended to retire in 2018, but postponed his plans after seeing the election of (). “We are still at risk, we need to be vigilant,” he says about the recent suspected coup attempt.
It’s a topic dear to those who defended hundreds of political prisoners during the (1964-1985) and were part of the , which concluded exactly ten years ago a report on the . The biography “Democracy and Freedom” tells details of these times and others that are intertwined with the history of Brazil.
In his apartment in São Paulo, Dias believes that the silence of the military is pernicious and that the idea that the Armed Forces are “absurd”. He also assesses that he “behaved in a very cowardly manner” to .
The lawyer also criticizes the lack of color in Brazilian parties, saying that the current one “is the worst the country has ever seen” and that “it is better”, but that the minister exaggerates.
Bolsonaro’s indictment and the film brought back discussions about the dictatorship. How do you evaluate the quality of this debate in Brazil today?
I followed the case a lot [ex-deputado] and he brings us the idea that we need to continue fighting for democracy. I’m not calm in the sense of saying that this is all over. This Federal Police report showed that we are at risk, so we need to be vigilant. How much the manifestation. I am convinced that, if the coup were carried out, other military personnel and civilians would join together to overthrow the government.
How do you see them being involved in January 8th and other attacks on democracy?
Amnesty is only permitted for someone who has been punished, you cannot grant amnesty in advance. Then it wouldn’t be amnesty, it would be a riot that would benefit Bolsonaro and all the people who would be participating in the coup. That doesn’t make sense. Even , was already a mistake, because it benefited not only those who participated in the coup, but also the torturers.
Those who defend amnesty argue that the penalties were exaggerated and that a feeling of injustice could be dangerous, which is why it would be necessary to pacify the country.
Pacifying the country is not saying okay to all the chaos that was done. If there are exaggerations in punishment, this can be seen on a case-by-case basis. But, as a general rule, there has to be punishment.
You have already said that the mission of the Truth Commission was to rewrite the history of Brazil. A few years later, a president was elected praising torturers, the headquarters of the three Powers were invaded and military personnel are investigated for attempted coups. Do you feel that the committee’s work was in vain?
No, I think it was very important. The main mission was to show the new generations that there was a dictatorship and that torture was used in an absolutely unreasonable way and with the support of the presidents. It wasn’t something that happened in one person’s head or another, it was a State policy. This was stated in the reports.
In the book, you criticize the current Executive, Legislative and Judiciary…
Today we have the worst Congress that Brazil has ever experienced. You find the bullet people there, the evangelicals who are absolutely distorting the function of what it means to be a Christian. The Federal Supreme Court is making some mistakes, but it is doing much better. And the Executive, Lula, is facing this great difficulty because of Congress, but he, personally, strives to put forward a better model. I’m not a PT member, far from it, but I understand that Lula is moving forward, for example, with respect for indigenous peoples.
The STF is better compared to what?
What happened during the dictatorship, for example. And even during the Bolsonaro period. Today we have a much more open Supreme Court, although I still make some restrictions. I am against, for example, how they behaved in the Mensalão trial, looking at public opinion. [Alexandre de Moraes] He exaggerates, but he is acting harshly and judging correctly, most of the time.
What is the role of the Catholic Church, an important actor during the dictatorship, in democracy today?
The CNBB [Conferência Nacional dos Bispos do Brasil] It has now acted much better than it did at the beginning of the 1964 coup, when the church supported the dictatorship. Then, there was a complete transformation, Dom Hélder Câmara and Dom Paulo Evaristo Arns emerged, the greatest figure in defending the rights of the persecuted. Today, the Catholic Church has a discreet position. What worries me when I talk about evangelicals — I’m not talking about traditional Protestantism — are these new churches that act in an exaggerated way. Their participation in Congress is completely out of place.
How do you see President Lula’s resistance and delay in condemning other dictatorships in Latin America?
It’s absurd. It is barbaric to imagine what is happening in Venezuela. I don’t know what we could do. He should have, and the PT behaved in a very cowardly way.
How can we not let the memory of the dictatorship die in the new generations?
This is the work that the Arns Commission, for example, is doing together with other entities. Civil society has to rise up so that democracy can be implemented in a strong, severe way, and try to bring about political reform. Parties have to have a face and color. There has to be the socialist party, the communist party, the liberal party. Today you look at the parties in Brazil and they are absolutely colorless.
X-RAY | JOSÉ CARLOS DIAS, 85
Criminal lawyer from USP, he defended hundreds of political prisoners during the military dictatorship, when he was arrested three times. After redemocratization, he held the public positions of Secretary of Justice of the State of São Paulo, under Franco Montoro (1983-1987), and Minister of Justice of (), in the late 1990s. He was also a member of the National Truth Commission during the government of Dilma Rousseff (PT) and presided over the , for the defense of , founded after Bolsonaro’s election.
