By DANIEL DE PAULA*

The late nature of the CNV and its limitations in relation to the power to judge and condemn the perpetrators of the dictatorship seem to have been its biggest problem.

In December 2014, the final report of the National Truth Commission was delivered to then-President Dilma Rousseff. Created by law 12.528, the objective of the CNV was to examine and clarify the serious human rights violations committed by the Brazilian State between 1946 and 1988, in order to consolidate the right to memory and truth and promote national reconciliation. However, ten years after the delivery of the final report, disputes over the memory of the dictatorship in the country have intensified and national reconciliation seems increasingly distant. So, what happened?

For some experts, such as Rodrigo Motta (2021), the National Truth Commission served as a stimulus for the mobilization of sectors linked to the extreme right, making events related to the 1964 coup and the military dictatorship increasingly common in public debate. In fact, since the creation of the commission was suggested, in the third edition of the National Human Rights Plan (2009), it has sparked intense discussions and memorial disputes.

In the press, for example, the first criticisms of the commission appeared in 2010, through statements by generals and the publication of letters and opinions (DIAS, 2013). Despite these initial tensions, the proposal to create the CNV was formalized and sent to the National Congress in 2011, where it was strongly contested by then federal deputy Jair Bolsonaro (ALMADA, 2020).

In general, for sectors linked to the Armed Forces and the extreme right, the commission represented the “revanchism” of the left and the violation of the Amnesty Law (1979). As is known, the Brazilian transition (1979-1985) was overseen by the military and the amnesty law, in a certain way, reflected this guardianship by guaranteeing the impunity of the military and establishing the bases for the construction of a policy of “forgetting”, under the premise that it would be necessary to forget the dictatorial past in order to build a democratic future.

This policy of forgetting prevailed in the years following the transition, and it was only in the 1990s that the federal government adopted some memory policies in relation to the dictatorship. Examples of this type of initiative include: the Law on Political Disappearances (1995), the Law on Reparations for Amnestied Persons (2002), the transfer of the SNI archives to the National Archives (2005), the book-report Right to Memory and Truth (2007) and the Revealed Memories project (2009).

Such measures also generated displeasure in the barracks and in conservative sectors, but they did not have the same scope and repercussion as the National Truth Commission, which, in a certain way, aimed to write an “official” history about the period of the dictatorship, in addition to having placed the perpetrators of that period in the spotlight.

Therefore, it is understandable that the Commission has generated a reaction from sectors linked to the civil and military far right. Such groups, strengthened by their feelings of aversion to the Workers' Party, found fertile ground to disseminate not only their criticism of the Commission, but also their defense of the 1964 dictatorship. As a result, the history of the dictatorship has become more present in the public debate in recent years, rekindling political disputes and memorials.

During the fiftieth anniversary of the 1964 coup, for example, we witnessed a true war of memories in Brazilian society led by the heirs and defenders of a memory critical of the dictatorship, whose hegemony has been threatened by the extreme right in recent years (NAPOLITANO, 2015).

Obviously, the undesirable effects of the National Truth Commission, that is, the mobilization of reactionary sectors in defense of the dictatorship, do not diminish its importance. The Commission fulfilled an important role in naming and holding accountable the perpetrators of the period (361 state agents) and affirming – what historiography had already shown, by the way – the systematic nature of human rights violations.

Furthermore, the commission also recognized 434 political deaths and disappearances and proposed interesting measures regarding the field of memory: the prohibition of official commemorations of the 1964 coup, the recognition by the Armed Forces of the violations committed against human rights, the reformulation of the curricular content of military academies and the increase of a policy of preserving the memory of human rights violations during the military regime (NAPOLITANO, 2015).

However, its late nature and its limitations regarding the power to judge and effectively condemn the perpetrators of the dictatorship (judicially) seem to have been the major problem. Transitional justice, in general, is based on four pillars: (i) the right to truth and memory; (ii) reparation for victims; (iii) justice (through judicial trials); and (iv) institutional reforms to strengthen democracy. If we take into account the transition process in Brazil, none of these pillars were initially fulfilled, because as explained, the Amnesty Law sought to guarantee the “forgetting” and impunity of the military.

Later, in a democratic context, some of the pillars of transitional justice began to be built in Brazil through the memory policies mentioned above and the National Truth Commission itself. However, the “forgetfulness” that prevailed for so long, combined with the lack of justice, seems to have contributed to a poor incorporation of democratic values ​​into Brazilian society. Therefore, it is not surprising that the extreme right has found, in recent years, fertile ground to defend the military dictatorship and new authoritarian projects for the country.

That said, President Lula's attitude is incomprehensible, as he recently chose to veto events related to the 60th anniversary of the 1964 coup. Such a stance – even if it is related to a political strategy – feeds the “forgetfulness” that has brought us to this point.

*Daniele de Paula is a master's student in Social History at USP.

References

DIAS, Reginaldo Benedito. The National Truth Commission, the disputed memory of the dictatorship period and the present time. São Paulo, Heritage and Memory, v. 9, no. 1, 2013.

ALMADA, Pablo Emanuel Romero. Denialism in Jair Bolsonaro's opposition to the National Truth Commission. RBCS, v. 36, no. 106, 2021.

NAPOLITANO, Marcos. “To remember is to win”: the dynamics and vicissitudes of the construction of memory about the Brazilian military regime. antitheses, Londrina, 2015.

MOTTA, Rodrigo Patto Sa. Past Presents: the 1964 coup and the military dictatorship. Zahar, Rio de Janeiro, 2021.

the earth is round there is thanks to our readers and supporters.
Help us keep this idea going.
CONTRIBUTE