!

!

Censorship in the Brazilian Military Dictatorship

The Brazilian military dictatorship took place in Brazil between the years of 1964 and 1985. Known as the first South American bureaucratic regime, the dictatorship strived to develop the country’s economy, reform politics and attract foreign investors. As the name suggests, this governmental model used the military’s power in order to rule the country. For this reason, the system was known to be extremely repressive and censorial. Moreover, anyone who seemed to oppose to the Brazilian authorities were often subjected to strict trials and often torture. The main explanation behind these practices is that the military government wanted to prevent revolutionary ideas that may have put their power in jeopardy. The main targets of this radical censorship were journalists and musicians, many of whom were severely punished for “conspiring” against the country’s authorities. However, the latter were simply expressing facts and public opinions on the situation of the time. This intense oppression can be seen as a violation of human rights and freedom of speech. In this essay, the historical and political context of this period, the ways that the military tyranny has affected the lives of Brazilian journalists, writers and other artists as well as the effect on publication processes of their works will be outlined. Moreover, tactics used by journalists and musicians to avoid the common oppression will be surveyed.

In order to have a more effective critical approach to this military dictatorship and its implications, it is necessary to understand the historical and political context in which the

!

!

movement was developed. For contextual purposes the survey will begin with the deposition of the previously elected president João Goulart, who was accused of sympathizing with Communist parties. The deposition occurred in the 1964 Coup D’État, an event where the president was overthrown by the Armed Forces (Schneider 121). Originally, the movement aspired to decrease the political corruption and “inefficient allocation of public resources”(Hagopian 1) present in the traditional form of government that preceded the dictatorship. In addition, inflation reduction, increase in foreign investments and establishment of Brazil as a great economic power were very important goals of the new government model (Hagopian 1). In order to achieve these goals, the military forces trusted that an extreme political shift was necessary. As a result, the new system was marked by increased military power, limited popular influence as well as participation on political decisions, and complete exclusion of popular classes (i.e: the non-elite members of the society) from politics (Hagopian 3). These implementations caused the country to move from a democratic position into an authoritarian regime. With General Castelo Branco now ruling the country (Vidal Luna, Herberet 17) and the “military [retaining] power in order to implement its own political agendas” (Hagopian 8), the state soon became filled with repression and censorship. The latter were defense mechanisms used by the new government due to fear of ideals that could put the military model in jeopardy (Antoine 255). This harsh ideology resulted in power abuse by the armed forces, since their members were not hesitant to censor, repress and torture their enemies (i.e: any individual or group who seemed to support communist ideals) in the name of “national security” (Hagopian 1).

!

!

As previously mentioned, the political authorities were willing to do anything and everything in order to prevent any changes in the new government. As Charles Antoine states in his book Church and Power in Brazil referring to the period, “[r]epression became official; censorship was complete and the stage was set to eliminate all political opposition” (2). The main targets of this censorship and repression were journalists, authors and visual artists. Anything that seemed to criticize or disagree with the political model was not allowed to be published and authors were subjected to prosecution. Government censors (professionals hired by the government to read, listen or watch works and decide if the content was appropriate for publication according to the military’s standards) were placed in most of the countries news papers, visual arts and literature publishing establishments (Hagopian 121). This measure prevented many works from being published and criticism was nearly eradicated. In addition, the regime enacted a Press Law in February of 1967 that limited the freedom of information published in written media (Wright 121). The act led to even harsher censorship that was justified by laws and numerous articles were rejected by the censors. This caused a major public discontent with the government, since the population felt like they were being lied to (Wright 123). However, many intellectuals and artists resorted to creative measures with the goal of avoiding the censorship. Many fictitious dystopian novels and movies were published. These portrayed events of the time and criticized the failed attempt to improve Brazil’s situation. Although the works seemed harmless and completely based on imagination, these indirectly condemned the current political authorities. The tactics of using fiction in order to illustrate the current situation allowed the public to access revolutionary ideals without the governments

!

!

repression, since the censors did not seem to realize the insinuations made in the published works (Brazilian Art under Dictatorship 533). Examples of novels that dealt with side effects of this dictatorship are Não Veras País Nenhum (i.e: No Country Will Be Seen) and Asilo Nas Torres (i.e: Asylum in the Towers) written 1970 by Loyola Brandão and Ruth Bueno respectively. Both compositions were set in fabricated locations and had a dystopian nature. The novels paralleled to the dictatorship as police brutality, arbitrary acts, corruption and excessive elite power -present in the current political system- were criticized. Publication of these works was granted, because there was no apparent explicit or direct criticism of the military authorities (Scientific Fiction During the Brazilian Dictatorship 314). Another example of works that fall under this fictioncriticism category is Antonio Manuel’s art exhibit called “The Experimental Exercise of Freedom”, that used body art to criticize the lack of freedom during the period. The work was repeatedly exhibited and censored during the dictatorship, since the level of censorship was not consistent through the whole country and some censors believed the art to be harmless (Brazilian Art Under Dictatorship 533). As some got away with masking attacks against the government, many were accused of conspiring against the state and suffered extreme torture, arbitrary prosecution, overcharging and occasional death. Numerous journalists were said to “criticize authorities in a way that allegedly stimulated ‘hatred between classes’ and ‘animosity against armed forces’” (Wright 121). On the other hand, the press professionals were simply expressing true facts with visual evidence of the governments overly brutal policies and violence. For example, Niomar Muniz Sandré Bitencourt (a famous political journalist of the time) was accused of publishing an offensive article in Rio de Janeiro’s Morning Post (i.e: Correio da Manhã) and was charged under the National Security

!

!

Law, which technically referred to more severe penal actions, such as terrorism. Most cases related to “press offenses” (including Bitencourt’s case) did not violate the National Security Law, however, the authorities used this tactic as an intimidation measure. This threat can be considered as a violation of “individual rights to inform, criticize, and disagree with official version of events” (Hagopian 121). Another way that the military’s authoritarian practices violated human rights was through torture. Anyone who seemed to disagree or conspire against the authorities was subjected to interrogations that almost always involved physical torture. The main reason for the use of this method was that the military officials feared anything that could put the military power in jeopardy. This overprotective approach boarded paranoia and many were wrongfully accused of “violating national security by speaking out or holding attitudes that criticized, insulted or attacked the constituted authorities” (Wright 136). The interrogations were held in order to extract information (on possible plans to overthrow the military authority) from suspects . However, in most cases the suspects were not actually associated with any political enemies and therefore they held no useful information (Wright 121). Nevertheless, the officials were told to torture the interrogated persons until a confession was made. This caused many false confessions and wrong sentences. The brutal actions were justified by the allegation that the torture was an measure with the goal of “[maintaining] internal security” (Wright 42). Cases such as Hecilda Fonteles de Lima’s , a political prisoner who suffered extreme torture during interrogations is an example of the intense oppression (Wright 122). Although the authorities aspired to not leave physical marks on the tortured many died. Despite the fact that many causalities were hidden from public

!

!

knowledge at the time, some deaths were reported and notified later on. Chael Charles Schreider, João Lucas Alves, Eduardo Leite, Joaquim Alencar Seixas are only a few instances of the many deaths due to torture during interrogations held in the dictatorial period. (Wright 193). The violence resulted in not only physical but also psychological consequences. Many of the tortured suffered permanent body damage such as paralysis and damage of the eardrums, and also post traumatic disorders and depression (Wright 186-189). The excessive censorship and torture imposed by the military forces are clearly a violation of human rights. The first is a violation of freedom of speech, for it denies the right of expressing personal ideas on certain issues and also interrupts the country’s cultural development by impeding the freedom of creative art (Brazilian Art Under Dictatorship 534). The next also violates human rights, since numerous civilians were subjected to torture based on biased accusations that had no foundation on actual evidence. The common law that everyone is innocent until proven guilty was not applied in this regime and the state had complete control over a citizen’s body. This practice evidently outlines the violation of the human right to have control over one’s own body and actions within good reason. Therefore, the previously mentioned methods of censorship and oppression are actions that violate rights that should be granted to the people in a society. In conclusion, it is possible to infer that the Brazilian military dictatorship, originally, had good intentions of improving the country’s economy and social situation. However, General Castello Branco’s government lost control of oppression, censorship and torture. Abuse of power and authority brutality became routine in this political system, resulting in extreme torture and arbitrary overcharging under false accusations of conspiring against the military forces (Wright

!

!

123). The measures imposed by the government authorities can be considered a violation of human rights, since journalists, writers and other artists were forced to remain silent and many were tortured and killed for simply speaking the truth as well as for being accused of hiding the truth. The dictatorship ended in 1985 and the country shifted to the civilian governance of President Tancredo de Almeida Neves. Despite the change from military power into a democratic non-military government, many aspects of the previous system (such as social inequality and occasional corruption) still remained in Brazil’s political reality. Therefore, it is fair to state that the Brazilian military dictatorship not only permanently scarred the country’s population (physically and emotionally), but also had an enormous impact on the countries legal and political practices that, to this day, present traces of this political regime.

Works Cited

!

!

Antoine, Charles. Church and Power in Brazil. London: Sheed and Ward Ltd., 1973. Print Causo, Roberto de Sousa. "Science fiction during the Brazilian dictatorship." Extrapolation 39.4 (1998): 314. Academic OneFile. Web. 18 Nov. 2013. Giunta, Andrea. "Brazilian Art Under Dictatorship: Antonio Manuel, Artur Barrio, and Cildo Meireles." The Americas 69.4 (2013): 533-536. ProQuest. Web. 15 Nov. 2013. Hagopian, Frances. Traditional Politics and Regime Change in Brazil. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 1996. Print Schneider, Ronald M. The Political System of Brazil. New York: Columbia University Press, 1971. Print Vidal Luna, Francisco, and Hebert S. Klein. Brazil Since 1980. New York: Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge, 2006. Print Wright, Jamie. Torture in Brazil. New York: Random House Inc., 1986. Print