The Policy Reforms During The Military Regime

The economy of Brazil is in the top ten largest economies along with the United States. It is the biggest in Latin America. Actually it is the seventh largest in the world. Brazil has used its newly found economic mechanism to syndicate its outcome in South America and show more of a role in the Global Businesses. The Obama Administration’s National Security Strategy recognizes Brazil as a developing center of effect, and greets the management of the country’s joint and global issues. The United States and Brazil associations mostly have been good in the recent years. But Brazil has other strengthening relations with neighboring countries and expanding ties with nontraditional partners in the South that’s developing.

Tackling some of the democratic deficiencies can help to overcome the paradox to an extent. Ortiz writes, “Despite their very different views of which features need protection, reform arguments all rest on a single fear: that, left to themselves, various political actors will transform equal political empowerment,” (239). This fear assumes a failure

All three nations would deal with similarities and differences when it came to military forces working within their governments. When Brazil had first gained its independence from Portugal in 1822, Brazil had become a monarchy. The monarchy would only last until 1889, they would then switch over to a republican form of government. After that they would transition into a dictator, followed by several presidents who tried to steer the Brazilian government into a democracy. One president named Juscelino Kubitschek would continue to develop Brazil’s economy; however, his dreams would be very expensive. His successors would try to accomplish his goal for him but it would prove to put the nation into foreign debt and inflation would shoot up. The plan for a land reform did not sit well with many people, they did not support breaking up large estates to give to peasants. The army would then step in taking control of a military coup. For two decades the military would end up controlling Brazil. The generals would focus on economic growth as well as fostering foreign investments. The military would then begin to pour in extensively large investments into the Amazon jungle. The economy would then boom, but the government would cut back on wages and social programs. Henceforth, the standard of living would decline massively. After the government had imposed censorship, the hate of the military government grew quickly. A recession, slow down of the economy took place. After this event, the military generals would decide to step down and allow free

Afro Brazilians have had to deal with centuries of oppression. During these times, Afro-Brazilians have had to deal with various methods, and strategies designed to keep entire communities oppressed. Many of these methods have had effects so profound, they are still affecting many Brazilians till this day. Political oppression is one of the oldest methods known to man, along with unleashing a forceful police force mimicking military forces. Authoritarian rule also played a major role in the shaping of the country. Furthermore, an inept biased justice system will fail those who need protections, and justice the most. These four key modes will be objectively examined, as well as the efficacy of each of these repressive strategies, and the impact that they have had or still have in the Afro-Brazilian communities.

Liberal democracy, also known as ‘representative democracy’, is a form of government or political system in which “democracy works on the tenets of liberalism” (Holden, 1993). This system has been dominant in the Western countries, such as New Zealand, Australia, Britain, Canada and the United States of America, over the past century or so. Other non-Western countries have also adopted this system following the collapse of communism in the 1990s. This system seeks to increase civil liberties by defending them against encroachment by forces of power such as the government. It also limits the government’s influence on moral and economic matters that affect citizenry (Avril & Neem, 2015).

The compulsory nature of voting in Brazil is a controversial topic, well discussed by politicians, jurists, political scientists, and voters. This requirement has been in place in Brazil since 1932, and every citizen older than 18 and younger than 70 is obliged to vote every 2 years. However, voters that are between 16 and 18 and voters that are older than 70 have the option to vote or not. For the voters that are obliged to vote, their abstention from voting implies in serious penalties, including the inability to apply for any governmental job, to get any official documents, like IDs and passports, and financial fines. Even with those sanctions, there is still a high number of abstentions. This is explained by the extremely low level of interest of the population in political matters as well as political immaturity. Considering these facts, the obligation of voting in Brazil should be maintained, the country is not ready for a change. A significant portion of the population is not yet capable of electing their leaders for the sake of the collectivity. Actually, the population needs to be made fully aware that the vote is the greatest weapon that exists against indifference and collective apathy; until then it will be necessary to maintain voting compulsory in Brazil.

Serbin makes an appealing argument in chapter two of his book, Secret Dialogues: Church-State Relations, Torture, and Social Justice in Authoritarian Brazil as he creates a sense of uncertainty and turmoil brought upon Brazil by the military and the Church. In chapter two, he presents and explains the dilemma of change to institutional beliefs for both of these entities. Although historically, the military and the Church had worked closely together, their need for adaptation to change in formulating a successful relationship in shaping Brazilian society failed to establish. The misunderstanding and the lack of acceptance of one another's ideology by both institutions hindered what possibly could have been a significant relationship in reforming Brazil and its people.

Latin America is a continent that is constantly struggling between governmental abuse and oppression of its citizens. In Latin America, it is very common for non –democratic systems to be enforced. During recent years, the continent has experienced a governmental shift from an absolute to a more democratic system. This era is called the democratic third wave, which brought about democratic like tendencies to Latin America. Many factors such as corruption, poverty, and inequality pushed the people to favor this new democratic system. The abuse of power is also very common, and the citizen’s unrest is highly noted. Most citizens are in favor of doing away with the old system of government, and establishing a new efficient political system.

6. The roles of the military in the governments in Brazil, Argentina, and Mexico had some similarities and differences. First starting out with Brazil, military dictators had played a major role in their governments fro about twenty years. Brazil was ruled by military dictators. This dictators, put importance on the economy growing, and they promoted some foreign investments. They showed this by beginning large projects that were located in the Amazon jungle. Because of these actions, the economy now did just as they hoped that it would. How every this economic advancements did have a couple negatives. Now, the governments stopped the wages, and they also held back on the social events. This then caused a downgrade in the standards of the normal

A critique of the dangers of an overzealous government, Terry Gilliam’s Brazil satirically examines how totalitarian states are able to exert such commanding control over a society through a system plagued by inefficiencies. Such a flawed system seems inherently unsustainable and paradoxical; however, all historical analyses of totalitarian states reveal the presence of this paradox. Although each has its different ideology to justify the totalitarian structure, such as Fascism in Nazi Germany and Communism in Soviet Russia, this paradox is pervasive. The society in Brazil is no exception in fact; Terry Gilliam uses his film as a reflection on how states amass such power and control of a populace. Through the mise-en-scene of the film,

Most obvious is the government in Brazil’s lack of any sort of supreme leader figure, figurehead or otherwise. In Nineteen Eighty-Four, the Party revolves around a character created to represent their ideology: Big Brother. The heads of Brazil’s government’s departments, then, are not accountable to any central leader or idea, and as such are often in competition with each other. This drawback of the rulership-by-group system is avoided by Nineteen Eighty-Four’s INGSOC party by having all members of the Inner Party ultimately accountable to the best interests of Big Brother, and thus accountable to the best interests of the rest of the Inner Party. By this logic and by the relative ineffectiveness of the government in Brazil, one could argue that INGSOC’s system results in a more efficient government (albeit one that provides even its highest elites with far less freedom than Brazil’s

In a recent article Foa and Mounk urge the need to look at deconsolidation seriously – rather than as one way street as described by former scholars. Particularly as they analyze the rising dissatisfaction with democracy across the world. World values survey and other data indicate that, especially among younger people, there is less belief in liberal democracy and democratic institutions (Foa and Mounk 2017). Francis Fukuyama warns that current economic and social trends threaten the future of liberal democracies and undermines democratic ideology, namely inequality and the shrinking middle class (Fukuyama

Getúlio Vargas (1882-1954), was the fourteenth president of Brazil, and whose first entry into presidency in 1930 signified the end of the Old Brazilian Republic, and marked the beginning the period known as the “Vargas Era” . Vargas’ first presidency ended in 1946 , concluding the Vargas Era. His second entry into office during the political era, the Second Brazilian Republic, in 1951, ended in 1954 with his suicide. Vargas’ times in office were characterized by his long rule as a dictator, economic reforms, constitutional changes, and other transformations in Brazil.

One of his most popular books is “The State in Capitalist Society”. The major goal of this book is to refute the pluralism claim—a dominant paradigm in the western political science when the book was published—that “power is dispersed among a large number of competing groups in society” and “the government was open to influence by competing parties and groups”. (Newman, 2007, p. 76).

From 1964 - 1985 Brazil was under the influence of a military regime that killed or “disappeared” political activists and trade unionists and tortured many others. Brazil’s military regime ruled Brazil by rotating military presidents, held elections, and kept Congress open. However, in reality, the elections held were heavily manipulated and the military openly threatened Congress if it began to operate against the views and wishes of the regime.