Research studies

The Experience of DemocratizationinThe State of Brazil

Democratic Arab Center

Prepared By: Mohamed Azzam El-Zupair

Supervisor: Dr.ElSayedAboFarha


This research discusses the form of democratization in Brazil. As democratization was a concern of researches for a while, especially in the Arab region. The major changes that have taken place since 2010 are continuing to shape the political and social landscape of the region and its neighbors. So,to achieve a better understanding and analysis of these changes and its current and future repercussions on the region and add to the scientific accumulation in Arabic, this study aims at analyzing the Brazilian transformation into a democracy as it’s a region similar to the Arabic region in many ways, and a study of its experience may help to comprehend the different determinants that lead to a democracy. in order to achieve the above this research first asks a major question on the form of this democratic transformation in the state of Brazil, followed with relevant sub-questions regarding the factors led to democratization, its stages, different actors involved in it, and finally its current form and expected future. To answer these questions the study is divided into TWO main parts. The first part discusses the concept of democratization itself, and the different factors, internal and external, that led to it in Brazil. The second part analysis the role of various actors in this process, and the evaluation of the present status of democracy in Brazil. The study aims at reachingcertain generalizations regarding the process of democratization as a whole which will enable researchers to take various factors and determinants in the Brazilian case and apply them to the Arab region, which may help steer these countries, which are going through turmerols, into democracy.


The phenomenon of democratization has become the concern of many researchers nowadays, especially in the Arab region. The major changes that have taken place in the region since 2010, which have led to the removal of a number of regimes and prompted others to make changes in their political structures to make them – as they claim- more democratic, have raised questions about the determinants of democratization and to search for models similar to the region’s political and social conditions. Hence, the Latin American region, namely Brazil, is suitable for such analysis.The importance of this study on the democratization of Latin America highlights the particularity of transformation in this region of the world, which has seen almost all forms and patterns of transformation compared to those in Asia, Africa and Eastern Europe[1].

SIGNIFICANCE of the study

1- Scientific Significance: This study contributes to increasing the scientific accumulation in an important and vital political subject, because the Arab Library lacks studies that focus on the aspects covered by this study. Even those that dealt with this region (Brazil) did not deal with the subject of democratic transformation in depth. The study also contributes to the development of new analyzes and visions of the subject and answers to questions and problems related to it.

2-Empirical Significance: The practical or empirical importance of this study stems from the similarity of the circumstances of the Latin American countries with the political, economic and social conditions of the Arab countries. Given the similarity of conditions and problems between the two regions, namely Brazil, this study provides policymakers with strategies and insights based on the experience of that country to help plan and implement realistic solutions to these problems.

Problem statement

The phenomenon of democratization has become the concern of many researchers nowadays, especially in the Arab region. The major changes that have taken place in the region since 2010, which have led to the removal of a number of regimes and prompted others to make changes in their political structures to make them – as they claim- more democratic,have raised questions about the determinants of democratization and to search for models similar to the region’s political and social conditions. Hence, the Latin American region, namely Brazil, is suitable for such analysis. Therefore, taking into account differences in multiple systems and structures, this research seeks to answer the following main question:what is the form of democratic transformation in brazil?

A number of sub-questions arise from this question:

  1. 1. What factors led to the process of democratic transformation in Brazil?
  2. 2. What are the stages and aspects of the process democratization in Brazil?
  3. 3. What role did Brazil’s various political and social actors play in bringing about this transformation?
  4. 4. What is present and the future of the democratic experiment in Brazil?

Research Approach

Thesystems analysis approachis the one that is used in this research. It has developed in other fields of knowledge other than political science, and then it was used in the field of politics by David Easton. The approach of the system is one of the most important approaches to the study of political and social phenomena. In his theory, Easton hypothesized that the political system is “a set of interactions related to the authoritarian allocation of resources in society.” He provided a framework for the analysis of political systems in which he assumed an integrated circuit of a dynamic nature that begins with inputs and ends with outputs, with a feedback process linking them. All within the context of the environment that affects and is affected by the system and its interactions.

The theory was based on the following statements:

  1. 1. The system is the unit of analysis. It is a group of interacting and interdependent elements on more than one level and has its own political and non-political applications.

2 – The system does not exists in a vacuum, but exists in and interact with that environment and its physical and moral demission.

  1. 3. Interaction between the system and the environment reaches the degree of interdependence, that is, the actions of a unit affect the rest of the units, and the actions of the system affect the environment and vice versa.
  2. 4. Change in the system is seen as synonymous with adaptation, that is, restoring the capacity of the system to adapt it and responding to actual and projected changes in the environment.

In the application of these statements, we find that the environment surrounding individuals and political structures directly affects their preferences, and that the actions of one group or actor in the environment – such as a political party or leader – affect all other units in the system either individuals or groups. Inputs in this case will be factors that led to Brazil democratic transformation, different political and social actors are as inputs. The stages and processes of transformation compose a process. The results and the current reality of Brazil represent outcome.

Literature Review

We can divide literature into the following three categories:

1- studies dealing with the theoretical and global aspects of democratization:  such studies were useful in providing an all-inclusive analysis of democratization[2], also provide background on the major elements on the international level that helped initiating the process of democratic transformation in many countries. In addition, these studies also draw upon the dilemmas of eroding nondemocratic regimes and crafting new democratic ones[3]. Finally, these studies introduced a vivid autonomy of the detrainments of democratic regimes[4]. However, they used to many generalizations and lacked an in-depth insight of national variables in the regions they draw upon.   

2- Studies dealing with Latin America in general:these analyses offered a proper insight on regional interactions and influences, and the role of revolutionary movements, foreign intervention, and constraints on domestic policy choice[5]. An explanation of the different interpretation of the determents and concept related to this region is provided[6]. Ideas in these studies however was influenced by certain perspective of its time period which differs significantly from the currents in the region.  

3- studies concentrate on the Brazilian case:the studies focusing specifically on Brazil is important in knowing the various actors in the Brazilian political arena and their roles in it[7]. Also providing this research with in depth historical background of the political life there, in addition to a beneficial account of the high and low points of Brazil’s democratic experience. Most of them, however, didn’t attempt to theorize the Brazilian experience in different countries[8].

Part one: Determinants and phases of Brazilian Democratization

In this part we discussthe variousinputs that paved the way for democratic transition in Brazil and the successive stages that took place during this process. But first we need to examine the concept of democratization itself in order to have a more obvious comprehension of its applications and the way it works. And before we examine it should be noted that democratization is a concept of many facets, and there are many definitions of it each has its similarities and differences with the others.

Section One:The concept and meaning of democratization
This section presents a theoretical framework with some key concepts of democracy and democratic transition that are used in this research. Studies focusing on democratization began to have a more significant weight in the early 70s with the rise of what is called “the third wave” of democracy throw-out many regions in the world starting with southern Europe [9]. The most self- evident definition of democratization is “the transition from a non – democratic or formal democratic system to a more democratic political regime”[10]. There are however many different ways to understand democratization. Different classes, social groups, and elites have varying understanding of it, while some consider free election to be its essence, some preserve it as a process of social equity first and foremost. While Other definitions focus on the advent of liberal individual rights. A more broader definition sees it as process of introducing citizenship rights with the creation of a democratic regime, the perceived state however should be embracing a substantive not procedural democratization[11]. All in all, a matter of mutual agreement is that democratization is judged according to its continuation as it often faces many setbacks.

Section Two: Factors that led to democratization in Brazil

Before indulging in the elements that led to democracy and the demise of military rule a historical background is needed. For twenty-one yearsBrazil was under the rule of an authoritarian military dictatorship which ruled Brazil from April 1, 1964 to March 15, 1985. It began with the 1964 coup d’état led by the Armed Forces against the administration of the President João Goulart[12]. With the support of the US the dictatorship in Brazilthe regime took repressive measures, suppressing media and the press, and cracking down on opponents of the regime. Although an initial economic prosperity (The Brazilian miracle) was achieved thanks to American loans and investments, however, the economic situation deteriorated leading eventuallyto the democratic reforms initiated by president Ernesto Geisel. From this we can divide the factors that helped the transition in Brazil into two main categories as follow:

1)- Internal factors:The first and perhaps the most relevant is the economic factor, and the other is the political factor which will be discussed here soon. The economic factor was an effective factor in the fall of the Brazilian dictatorship. All authoritarian regimes in the world naturally come with huge economic promises. And some, as in Brazil, can achieve what appears to be an economic boom.

But at the beginning of the eighties, several factors led to a severe economic imbalance in the Brazilian economy:

  • The debts taken by the military regime during the sixties and seventies from the institutions and Western banks became due to pay in the eighties and all in dollars, which placed a huge burden on the budget of the Brazilian government.
  • With population growth and growing poverty in Brazil, the land problem has surfaced. Most of the land in Brazil was under the control of the army, the state and the rich. The poor live in slums (called favela) that are not expandable and geographically limited, although slum dwellers were growing at a high rate. Therefore, by the 1980s, the poor had started to seize the land nearby. A major conflict arose between the army and the state, on the one hand, and the poor of Brazil on the other.
  • With the advent of the 1980s, prices of raw materials in the world declined, mainly oil. Brazil’s economy was heavily dependent on exports of raw materials, all of which were very high in the 1970s after the 1973 war. But with the collapse of oil prices and the decline of all the prices of raw materials was followed by the decline of the Brazilian economy sharply.
  • Brazil’s importance for donor countries declined in the 1980s, which meant less loans and direct investments.

This is about the economy which is the first factor in accelerating Brazil’s return to democracy. But it is not the only factor at all. Since there is no democratic transition that happens for economic reasons solely, but there are several other variables.There are a range of political transformations that influenced Brazil in the period between the 1964 coup and the democratic transition in 1985. These transformations can be summarized in four major elements:

  • The disintegration of the military alliance with the church, business and the middle class, who led the coup. It’s important to notice that the coup that took the power in 1964was not exclusively military, but rather military-led, which included several factions like the catholic church and major businessmen[13]. Thus, when the disintegration of the military alliance with the church, business and the middle class, who led the coup happened it was. The same groups of the Brazilian Catholic Church and the big businessmen in São Paulo, for example, and the middle class who helped the Brazilian army and demonstrated for the millions in 1964 are the same who led the demonstrations against the Brazilian army in 1984. The military regime had based its legitimacy back then on three basics; Against communism, against chaos, against corruption.However, the problem of any regime that derives its legitimacy from being against something that what is called a “negative legitimacy” becomes its basis. And the problem of the negative legitimacy is that one of two things happens, either corruption, communism and chaos disappear, and thus the need for the regime is no longer necessary. Or corruption and communism and chaos remain and therefore a question arises; why support a failed regime in the task it came to achieve?[14]

Thus, with the transfer of power from General Castillo Branco to his successor Artur da Silva, Emileo Medici and Ernesto Giselle in the 1970s, it became clear that reliance on negative legitimacy was not enough. The transition to a new type of legitimacy began, namely, the legitimacy of efficiency. The legitimacy of efficiency is based on the claim that the army is the best one to run of the economy and the state.The problem of relying on the legitimacy of efficiency is that at the moment a lack of efficiency in the system appears it loses its legitimacy. Unlike democratic legitimacy, which depends on well-established contractual procedures, even if there is no efficiency, the legitimacy remains until the new elections.

  • The political unity factor of the Brazilian middle class or what is called the “line-up”. This applies to the Catholic Church in Brazil, which saw that its future should not depend on the military leadership. As well as businessmen in Sao Paulo who saw that the economy is crumbling and therefore their profits are falling because of the army’s fraudulent leadership of the economy[15]. The same is true of the middle class of staff, professors and leaders who saw the military leadership as damaging their income directly. The church and businessmen have allied themselves with Left-wing leaders such as Lula da Silva (one of Brazil’s labor leaders and future president). The main demand in Brazil, which brought together all opposing sides in Brazil is “Diretas Já ” or direct election.As elections in Brazil were indirect. People elect an electoral complex that elects candidates from the military. Millions of Brazilian people in 1984 demanded a direct election.This was helped by the split between the leaders of the Brazilian army and each other.
  • the election of the retired General Ernesto Geisel (1974–79) who was elected to Presidency with the former president Medici’s approval. Geisel was a well-connected Army General and former administrative officer who had some reformative tendencies. Once in power, Geisel adopted a more moderate stance with regards to political opposition than his predecessor Médici. This allowed for the democratic opposition to organize its ranks and compete in the free elections.
  • Despite the coup in Brazil, the Brazilian army has always wanted to appearas a democratic system in the eyes of the world; so, it has continued to hold periodic elections in the Brazilian Congress. Although the army formed an opposition party of the army in Brazil, it was keen to have a form of independence for the party. Preserve the democratic appearance. Also, Bar associations and journalists have also remained active in Brazil, and particularly had a role in exposing the torture against detainees in Brazil[16].

2)- External factorsTheaforementioned economic and political factors were internal factors. But there are two other external aid factors: regional effects and the internationalsituation.

  1. Regional effects (Regional liquidity):Another factor that has to be considered in the Brazilian transition to democracy is the so-called Snowball effect. The cases of successful democracies in the region might have been an incentive for other countries to also democratize, including Brazil[17].In discusses regional liquidity in the case of Brazil, which a catalyst for revolution or democratic transformation, two countries may have had the most noticeable effect (Spain and Portugal). The links between Latin America and the mother countries (Spain and Portugal) are complex historical ties. In the mid-seventies democratic transformation began in both Spain and Portugal, caused by economic difficulties, and rapidly in both cases. Portugal was under military rule for a long time, the last of whom was General Marcelo Caitleno. In 1973, General Antonio de Spinola published a book called “Portugal and the Future” in which he spoke about the opening of freedoms and economic liberalization. His views provoked young Portuguese army officers who staged a military coup against Caetan’s rule on April 25, 1974 and put de Spinola at the head of the coup.The coup of April 1974 was the spark. Where millions of Portuguese took to the streets demanding freedom and progress in what was called “the carnation revolution.” And there was no solution except to hold free elections for the first time in Portugal on April 25, 1975, one year after the coup[18]. Next was Spain, On 20 November 1975, months after free elections in Portugal, the Spanish dictator General Franco died. When Franco died, Juan Carlos of Spain became the head of state. Juan Carlos expressed his desire for the democratic transformation of Spain in his address to the Spanish Parliament.Carlos chose Mr. Adolfo Suarez to become the Prime Minister of Spain.Adolfo Suarez passed the laws to amend Spain’s political system. In order to secure these amendments against a coup; Suarez put the amendments in a referendum and passed those laws that opened the door to political pluralism[19].

With the advent of the 1980s and the collapse of oil prices, the economy of Spain and Portugal began to achieve the economic miracle we see today as Brazil’s economy declined. Brazil’s neighbor Argentina was defeated in the Falkland war against Britain, although Argentina was wealthier, in terms of natural resources, than the British islands. Argentina was also under the rule of the generals.There is a lively academic debate about the importance of the democratic transition in Portugal and Spain and its impact in Brazil. But undoubtedly, if not a key factor, it is an auxiliary factor.The Brazilian citizen saw how the poorer, compared to Brazil of course, Spain and Portugal advancing economically while adapting democratization, while he is being oppressed and the economy is declining[20].

  1. International developments:The last of the Presidents in the previous period, João Goulart, frightened the Brazilian oligarchic elites as well as other sectors of the society, especially the military, with his left-wing tendencies and sympathy towards communism. That was the Cold War period,Brazil was the second biggest country in the Americas; its turning into a Communist country was obviously not favorable for the United States or the rest of the Western bloc. The coup that overthrew Goulart was not exclusively military, but rather military-led. There were many sectors that opposed his administration. The United States had prepared a contingency plan that was to assure the success of the coup[21]. US interest in Latin America may outweigh the Middle East. As America’s presence in Latin America is a direct presence in its own right, not through proxies. America considers the security of the Americas as a single bloc since the principle of Monroe, which considers that any foreign intervention in Latin America is a direct attack on the United States. With the beginning of the eighties and with the Soviet Union entering the quagmire of Afghanistan, and new incompetent and weak leaders assuming power in the Soviet Union, after Hamas, America and the West enthusiasm to keep the coup leaders diminished, as they in fact were a burden on American interests and draining its budget without a real return. And with the danger of communism and its spread in Latin America been curbed. The alternative to military rule was not only communism, but rational leadership emerged in Brazil, and outside the army, Brazil’s future lay in the restoration of democracy. The alliance of the Church with business people with the media and workers’ organizations was crucial in the return of democracy to Brazil. By the early 1980s, there was nothing in the alliance of democratic movements that America considered a threat to its interests[22].

Section Three: The stages of democratization in Brazil
Brazil’s current political life was founded on the Federal Constitution of 1988, which is considered asamilestone in the democratic transformation of the country after 21 years of totalitarian military rule (1964-1985). However, the maintenance of democratic civil rule in Brazil for 20 consecutive years Since the end of the period of military rule has not been easy, especially after the death of Tancredo de Almeida Neves, the first elected president by the Legislative Council and state representatives, before he formally took power. After forcing President Fernando Colore de Mello, the first president directly elected by the people in 1992 to resign, following accusations of corruption. Brazil wasn’t stabilized at the political level until the election of Fernando Henrique Cardoso as president in 1994 followed Lula da Silva in 2002.

Thus, we can divide the process of democratization in Brazil into three distinct phases; starting from the reforms conducted during the presidency of Ernesto Geisel then João Figueiredo after him, followed by the stage of early democracy untail the impeachment of Fernando Colore de Mello, then the stabilization stage starting from the election of Fernando Henrique Cardoso.

1)- The early transition stage: In the late years of the military regime and due to raising internal opposition and declining economic status, the military rulers were forced to push for more democratization.

  1. The presidency ofErnesto Geisel:So, in 1973 President Emílio Garrastazu Médici selected Ernesto Geisel to be his successor as the President, despite intense behind-the-scenes maneuvering by the hard-liners against him. Geisel adopted a more moderate stance with regards to political opposition. Together with his Chief of Staff, Minister Golbery do Couto e Silva Geisel devised a plan of gradual, slow democratization that would eventually succeed despite all the threats and opposition from hard-liners. He replaced several regional commanders with trusted officers and labeled his political program abertura and distensão, meaning a gradual relaxation of authoritarian rule.In 1977 and 1978 the Presidential succession issue caused further political confrontation with the hard-liners. In October he dismissed the far-right Minister of Army, General Sylvio Couto Coelho da Frota who had tried to become candidate for the next President[23]. In 1978 Geisel had to deal with the first labor strikes since 1964. In late December 1978 he announced the end of the oppressive Institutional Act 5, which gave the president the authority to intervene in laws, andalso to suspend any constitutional guarantees which eventually resulted in the institutionalization of the torture commonly used as a tool by the State. He allowed exiled citizens to return, restored “habeas corpus” and political rights to politicians, repealed the extraordinary powers of President, and managed election of General João Figueiredo (1979–85) as his successor in March 1979.
  2. The presidency of João Figueiredo:He continued the process of democratization that Geisel had started. As president, he continued the gradual “abertura” (democratization) process instituted in 1974. An amnesty law, signed by Figueiredo on August 28, 1979, amnestied those convicted of “political or related” crimes between 1961 and 1978[24]. In the early 1980s, the military regime could no longer effectively maintain the two-party system established in 1966. The Figueiredo administration dissolved the government-controlled National Renewal Alliance Party (ARENA) and allowed new parties to be formed. In 1981 the Congress enacted a law on restoration of direct elections of state governors.The opposition vigorously struggled for passing a constitutional amendment that would allow direct popular Presidential elections in November 1984, but the proposal failed to win passage in the Congress. Opposition’s candidate Tancredo Neves succeeded Figueiredo when Congress held an election in the electoral college for the new President.

One thing is worth noting here, that although, in this early phase of democratization, the gradual reforms back then were essentially madeas a way to appease the streetrage duea deteriorating economic situation, and to reorganize the regime from the inside, not, at least initially, for the purpose of democratization and establishing a new democratic regime.

2)- Stage ofturmoiled democracy:In 1984, the Brazilian politicianTancredo Neves ran for president. He was elected President of Brazil on January 15, 1985 by the indirect voting of an electoral college. Tancredo fell gravely ill on the eve of his inauguration, March 14, 1985, and died 39 days afterwards. He died of diverticulitis and never assumed his position as president.Although he never assumed presidency the election of Tancredo was an indication that the age of military control over the state has come to its end[25].

  1. The presidency of José Sarney: Sarney became Tancredo Neves running mate on the opposition ticket, as part of a political deal. Neves won the election of 15 January 1985, but became gravely ill on the night before his inauguration. Sarney assumed office as acting president until Neves died on 21 April, and he formally became the first civilian president in 21 years.He had to face many problems: an enormous foreign debt, rampant inflation and corruption as well as completion of the transition to democracy. Sarney launched an economic plan to stabilize the economy, called “Plano Cruzado”, successful at first, but the inflation became stronger than ever after a year[26]. A new and democratic constitution was promulgated in 1988, and in the following year, the first direct elections since 1960 were held.Sarney was barred from running for president in his own right in 1989. In Brazil, when a vice president serves part of a president’s term–including when the president is abroad–it counts as a full term. At the time, the Constitution barred a president from immediate reelection[27].
  2. The presidency of Fernando Collor de Mello: Collor was the first President directly elected by the people after the end of the Brazilian military government. He became the youngest President inBrazilianhistory, taking office at the age of 40. The very day he took office, Collor launched the Plano Collor (Collor Plan), a contradictory measure to combat hyper-inflation. Under his tenure, Brazil had a period of major changesin many levels of public administration: “privatization, opening its market to free trade, encouraging industrial modernization, temporary control of the hyper-inflation and public debt reduction[28].During the course of his government, Collor was accused of condoning an influence peddling scheme. The accusations weighed on the government and they led Collor and his team to an institutional crisis leading to a loss of credibility.the combination of the political crisis and the hyperinflation continued to decrease Collor’s credibility and in that political vacuum an impeachment process took place,he resigned in a failed attempt to stop his trial of impeachment by the Brazilian Senate[29].
  • The presidency of Itamar Franco: Franco took power as Brazil was in the midst of a severe economic crisis, with inflation reachinga record high. After the troubled Collor Presidency, Franco quickly installed a politically-balanced cabinet and sought broad support in Congress[30]. During his Presidency, in April 1993, Brazil held a long-announced referendum to determine the political system (remaining a Republic or restoration of the Monarchy) and the form of government (presidential or parliamentary system]. The Republican and presidential system prevailed by large majorities respectively. Ironically, Franco himself always preferred the parliamentary government[31].In 1993, Franco resisted calls from various military and civilian offices to shut down the Congress (described by some sources as a “coup attempt”)[32]. His administration is credited for restoring integrity and stability in government, particularly after the troubled Collor presidency. The President himself kept his reputation of honesty, and his personal style was viewed as very different from Collor’s, who practiced “an imperial and ceremonious presidential role”.In late 1993, Franco offered a resignation in order to call an earlier election, but Congress turned it down.At the end of term, Franco’s job approval rating soared to nearly 80–90 percent[33].

From the aforementioned we can identify some important qualities in this stage;it was characterized by uncertainty about the shape of the new political order. we can also identify the emergence of new political actors and figures that began to take the spot from the older actors, and the basis for the future system and institutions were laid through 1988 constitution. All in all, this period was It is inevitable phase as it worked as anarchway to the new established system.

3)- The stabilization stage: This was the period in which Brazil started to Strengthening pillars of democracy and becoming a real democracy after the unbalances of the previous decade.Brazil did not experience stability at the political level until Fernando Henrique Cardoso was elected president in 1994, followed by Lula da Silva in 2002.

  1. The presidency of Fernando Henrique Cardoso:Cardoso is a Brazilian sociologist, professor and politicianwho served as the 34th President of Brazil from January 1, 1995 to December 31, 2002.He was the first Brazilian president to be reelected for a subsequent term[34].

Cardoso was able to establish the foundations of the new civil regime with his academic background and political experience. As he spent a long time in exile during the period of military rule, along with his experience as Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of Finance during the reign of Atmar Augusto Franco since 1992[35].After winning the 1994 presidential election against his leftist challenger Lula da Silva, Cardoso began to implement economic and political reforms that contributed to his re-election to the presidency for a second term in October 1998 with a vote of 53.06 percent of the total electorate[36].Cardoso refrained from amending the constitution in such a way that he could run for a third term as his supporters wanted, and even contributed,indirectly, in the election of Lula da Silva to the presidency by insisting on taking a neutral position on the presidential election.

  1. The presidency of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva: In 2002, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, of the PT (Workers’ Party), won the presidency with more than 60% of the national vote. Lula received from his predecessor, Cardoso, an economic legacy burdened with foreign debt of $ 260 billion and domestic debt, which accounts for 61 percent of gross national product. But despite being leftist what made “Lula” successful that since the beginning of his political career to the present, Lula has changed some of his original ideas and moderated his positions. Instead of the drastic social changes he proposed in the past, his government chose a reformist line, passing new retirement, tax, labor and judicial legislation, and discussing university reform.Lula confirmed in his electoral pledges his commitment to the terms of the agreement concluded by the Cardoso government with the International Monetary Fund. Under which Brazil received $ 12 billion and began to implement the economic reforms mandated by the Fund.His government followed an austerity policy that reduced social programs, which fell to 22% of GDP in 2003[37].These measures have caused severe splits within Brazil. Lula was accused of abandoning his principles and many members of Lula’s Labor Party threatened to vote against the reform program, but Lula did not back down from these measures and adopted his reform program until the Brazilian market recovered and democratic construction was achieved.Brazil’s policy during Lula’s era was characterized by a great deal of effectiveness, as this period was associated with the democratic transition[38]. Brazil’s foreign policy began to tend towards engaging in multilateral initiatives and alliances[39].

This stage started with consolidating and confirming the commitment to democracy in Brazil, and during Lula’s administration it was shown that the country has established a strong based democracy from a political perspective, so the government started to attend the other pillar of democracy which is a productive economy withequitable distribution of wealth, and after succeeding in that it put its eyes on anprominent international position, which became  accessible due to its distinguished democratic figure.

Part Two: The role of different actors in democratization and the present and futureevaluations

In this part we discuss the role of different parties involved in the Brazilian democratization experience. Such parties include various political, social, and even military insurgency movements. An evaluation on the impact of the major ones is also offeredhere. Lastly, an assessment to the output of this experience and its expected development in the near future is what we conclude with.

Section one:The role and significance of different actors in Brazil’sdemocratization

The focus here will be actors that engaged in an active movement in order to reinstall democracy in Brazil. And in order to examine this variable clearly this section will be subdivided into two parts, the first of which will discuss actors resorted to violence and acts of insurgency, and the second will examine the actors who operated within the constitutional and legal framework.

1)- Revolutionary violence andInsurgency movements:After the military coup in 1964 many political parties and other movements took up arms against the military regime. The conflict between the two lasted for nearly a decade and ended with the either with factions laying down arms and reorganize itself to enter the political struggle arena or with the eradication of those factions who continued to fight. 

  1. Communist Party of Brazil (PCdoB): In 1962 the PCdoB adopted “Maoism” which led to a shift in the strategies of the PCdoB. Following the principle of protracted people’s war, PCdoB undertook to transfer ideology to the field, initiating the formation of a peasant army. The most effective guerrilla of the PCdoB column under the name “Araguaia Guerrilla Force” was composed of high school and college students, organized around the Patriotic Union of Youth (UJP, youth wing of the party), professionals, and workers mainly from São Paulo and Minas Gerais. In 1971, Army units discovered the location of the guerrilla nucleus and were deployed to cordon off the area, preventing it from spreading its operations to the north of the Amazon. The repression of guerrilla operations began in 1972, most of the guerillas died in clash with Army forces.The defeat of the Araguaia would establish the ideal of the PCdoB guerrillas as the most effective and experienced of armed struggle the dictatorship. Most of the dead in the repression of the military regime between 1964 and 1979 would be PCdoB militants. The Araguaia Guerrilla redefined the dictatorship’s plans for the Amazon region, whose repressions in the region were hidden long after the dictatorship’s fall.Observing the failure of the rural guerrilla and the new policy adopted by China since Mao’s death in 1976, PCdoB decided to break with Maoism.In 1978, the party had begun participating in institutional action through the MDB, the moderate opposition to the military government. PCdoB resumed its parliamentary activity and secretly elected its first MPs from within the MDB[40].
  2. Revolutionary Movement 8th October (MR8): During the military dictatorship in Brazil, MR8 was formed by Brazilian Communist Party members who disagreed with the party’s decision not to take part in armed resistance against the military government. And one of its biggest actions was the kidnapping of American ambassador “Charles Burke Elbrick” in 1969. In the late 1970s, MR8 conducted thorough criticism for its participation in armed resistance against the dictatorship. Under the leadership of Daniel Terra, it defined the struggle for “democratic liberties” as the primary task for the Brazilian left and became active inside the MDB, and had an important role in the reawakening of the student movement in 1976-1977.However, it came to believe that the “national issue” was more important than the” democratic issue“and in 1978 shifted its policies. It never abandoned the struggle against the dictatorship, but became increasingly aggressive against other leftist movements[41].
  • Revolutionary Communist Party(PCR):Unhappy with the Communist Party of Brazil’s (PCdoB) “revisionist” stance on the direction of the Soviet Union, a group of PCdoB members left the party and formed the Revolutionary Communist Party (PCR) in 1966. The PCR maintained that the PCdoB had abandoned Leninism in favor of Soviet revisionism. Despite the danger, the PCR remained committed to the armed struggle against the government. The party was instrumental in organizing labor strikes and student demonstrations, but they also engaged in more destructive activities such as burning government-owned sugarcane fields.The party was partially dismantled in the early-1970s after a brutal torture campaign was waged by the government against suspected communists and leftist political parties.In July 1981, due to the limited success of PCR resistance operations against the government, the party made the decision to merge with the October 8th Revolutionary Movement (MR-8), but the both had some significance disagreements and After internal struggles within the party, the PCR elected to split with MR-8 in 1995, resulting in the re-foundation of the party[42].
  1. National Liberation Action (ALN): it’s amovement formed in the last months of 1967 to stand against the military dictatorship of 1964–1985. It was founded by Carlos Marighella after he was expelled from the Brazilian Communist Party. In September 1969, ALN members kidnapped the U.S. ambassador Charles Burke Elbrick in a coordinated move with the Revolutionary Movement 8th October. After a series of successful robberies and kidnappings, the police force was determined to eliminateCarlos Marighella. He was shot by police at an ambush at 8pm on 4 November 1969[43]. 

The policies the military junta which used imprisonment, torture, and putting restraints on the civil and political freedoms accompanied by the rise of armed revolution ideologies across the world led to the rise of many insurgent groups in Brazil during the years of the junta.These mentioned above were the most prominent military rebellion movements in this period, other groups also include (Revolutionary Armed Vanguard Palmares -VAR Palmares, and Popular Revolutionary Vanguard– VPR). These groups however were not able to topples the regime, on the contrary the military role was strengthened and gained some sort of “Legitimacy of necessity”. These movements were mostly influenced by Marxist-Leninist and Maoism, they used guerilla war tactics and were able to inflict some measure of uneasiness to the authorities. But most of the time they were unable to work together and even fought each other at some instances. Noticeably that these groups also worked in the street, mainly in supporting workers strikes and students and activists demonstrations and hade an integral part in many of them. Finally, most of these movements either dissolved itself completely in the wake of the junta’s fall, or moved to re-organize and revise their structures and methods and became full-fledged legal political parties using constitutional channels to change policies.

2)- peaceful social and political actors:Although armed revolutionary groups put some pressure on the Brazilian military regime it was the other more peaceful and political pragmatic parties and the social protests backed by them, but also backed by the revolutionists, had perhaps the most influential part in Brazil’s democratization process. the following is a discussion of the most prominent of these actors which areBrazilian Democratic Movement and TheWorkers’ Party.

  1. Brazilian Democratic Movement: With the 1964 coup, all political parties were banned, and different parties especially the socialist organizations had to act clandestinely. The creation of bipartisanship in 1965 by a presidential decree allowed moderatepoliticians from all sides of opposition to join the Brazilian Democratic Movement (Movimento Democrático Brasileiro – MDB), the party of consented opposition to the military regime.At first, the MDB had almost no power or influence in the ARENA-dominated Congress. As such, it boycotted the indirect presidential elections; in practice, these elections merely served to rubber-stamp the military leadership’s choice of president, and ARENA’s majority was so massive that any MDB candidate stood virtually no chance. However, in the elections of 1974 it took almost enough seats to gain a majority in the Chamber of Deputies, and actually won a majority in the Senate. As a result, the military government passed legislation restricting the power of the opposition, and even annulled the election of certain MDB Congressmen.The MDB participated in the indirect presidential elections of 1974 and 1978 with two “anti-candidates”. Well aware that they could not possibly win, they used these campaigns to gain the attention of the global media, and denounce the democratic facade of the Brazilian dictatorship. In 1979, the military government allowed the formation of new parties. In 20 December 1979 MDB and ARENA were dissolved with the signing of a new Political Parties Law. The bulk of the MDB became the Party of the Brazilian Democratic Movement[44].In 1985, party leader Tancredo Neves won the presidential election, but died before taking office. His running mate Jose Sarney, who had recently joined the party after defecting from the political wing of the military, became president, serving until 1990. He was the only president of Brazil to come from the party. In recent presidential elections the party has not run candidates of its own, preferring to focus on congressional and governatorial elections.

The MDB, was founded as a legal, civil movement of opposition to Brazilian military government. Without a clear program except the democratization of the country, the party was an umbrella of opponents of military regime, ranging from liberal conservatives and Christian democrats from parties like Christian Democratic Party and Social Democratic Party to former labourists, socialists and even communists, of Brazilian Labour Party, Brazilian Socialist Party and Brazilian Communist Party. With the democratization, many centrists and leftists left the party to another parties with more consistent ideology[45].

  1. Workers’ Party:The Workers’ Party was launched by a heterogeneous group made up of militants opposed to Brazil’s military government, trade unionists, left-wing intellectuals and artists, and Catholics linked to the liberation theology. The party was launchedunder a democratic socialism trend in 1980as a result of the approach between the labor movements in the ABC Region, which carried major strikes from 1978 to 1980, and the old Brazilian left-wing, whose proponents, many of whom were journalists, intellectuals, artists, and union organizers, were returning from exile with the 1979 Amnesty law. Originally ABC was a movement sought to act exclusively in union politics, but the survival of a conservative unionism under the domination of the State forced the unionist movement of ABC, encouraged by anti-Stalinist leaders, to organize its own party. Therefore, the Workers’ Party emerged rejecting the traditional leaders of official unionism, and seeking to put into practice a new form of democratic socialism, trying to reject political models it regarded as decaying, such as the Soviet and Chinese ones[46].One of the party important acts that he helped, beside other socialist parties, In the creation of “the Landless Workers” in 1984. The movement was created as a reaction to the military regime’s failed land reform program. This socialist group grew rapidly, becoming the largest social movement organization in Latin America[47].

The impact of those actors on Brazil’s democratization is noticeable, as they served not only as a “big tent” for the opposition but also as a conductive and consolidating the social demands of various classes of the society back then e.g. workers, students, activists etc. Thus, they often supported and helmed different protests and movements demanding social justice, freedoms, economic rights, etc.

Section Two: Assessment of the Brazilian experience and its future

As we mentioned before the Brazilian democracy known stability under the presidencyof Cardoso, but although the political institutions were democratized, the social struggles remained. As the social justice in Brazil was still to be attained. Within a decade, Brazil was able achieved a huge economic achievement. However, the lack of social justice is still very important. It remains one of the world’s least countries in equality and social justice, and one of the most countries with a concentration of wealth. Equality between the Brazilian provinces is intertwined with each other, within a community of about 60 million people living without clean water or sanitation facilities.These can be noticed in the fact that the Brazilian rich class, which accounts for 82% of society, receives 10% of all the wealth of society.The movement for agrarian reform has also spread in the early 2000s.As, back then, less than 1% of the people of the largest agricultural land owners owns about 40% of all land, while the poor and their proportion of about 53% have less than 3%. And between 2003 and 2009, state policies succeeded in helping more than 21 million people overcome poverty, and the poverty rate fell from 35.8 percent to 21.4 percent[48]. Another problem appeared during 2013-2014 when the country was hosting the worlds tree biggest events. The demonstrations were initially organized to protest against increases in bus, train, and metro ticket prices in some Brazilian cities, but grew to include other issues such as the high corruption in the government and police brutality used against some demonstrators[49].  In 2014 the protests renewed again to demonstrate. The protests were primarily concerned with the spending of billions of reais of public money on stadiums for the World Cup[50].In 2015 and 2016, a series of protests in Brazil denounced corruption and the government of President Dilma Rousseff, triggered by revelations that numerous politicians, many from Brazil’s Workers’ Partyallegedly accepted bribes connected to contracts at state-owned energy company Petrobras between 2003 and 2010, while Rousseff chaired the company’s board of directors. The first protests on 15 March 2015 numbered between one and nearly three million protestersagainst the scandal and the country’s poor economic situation. In response, the government introduced anti-corruption legislation[51].Following allegations that Rousseff’s predecessor, Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva, participated in money laundering and a prosecutor ordered his arrest, record numbers of Brazilians protested against the Rousseff government on 13 March 2016, with nearly 7 million citizens demonstrating.On 12 May 2016, the Federal Senate temporarily suspended Rousseff until it reached a verdict and replaced her with Vice President Michel Tamer[52]. The case of Brazil and its future under these circumstances remains uncertain, as the social and political landscape is shifting, and a new wave of transformation is underway. And no matter how long it will take, Brazil’s politics, society, and institutions will probably not be the same.

Finally, this research started with the aim to identify the form of democratization in Brazil, and to reach certain generalizations regarding democratic transition that are applicable to the Arab region. This research arrived at the following conclusions:

  1. The process of democratization in Brazil went through three main stages (the stage of early reforms by the military reformists leaders, the stage of unstable democracy with no strong democratic institutions, the stage of balance and stabilized democratic institutions with the focus shifting from policy reform to economic reform under Da Silva’s administration).
  2. The fall of military dictatorship and the restoration of democracy in the country was aided by a combination of internal and external factors (the depression of economy internally and the end of foreign support especially from US externally).
  • Thirdly is that the actors such as the Brazilian Democratic Movement and the Worker’s Party had far more effective role in toppling the military regime than the militarized revolutionary movements. And that the cooperation between various political and social groups regardless of their ideological differences or political views is pivotal for the successes of any democratic movement. Also, that using the public’s problems and needs as a way of demanding democracy is more effective, at least in the case of Brazil, than remaining confined to limited theoretical or Rhetorical arguments.
  1. Finally, democratization is an ongoing process which require continues maintenance and rejuvenation, in order to be able to face the different political and social challenges that may encounter it. And that the matters of social equality, justice, and l elite’s integrity andequality before the law, are as important and integral for democratization as fair elections and peaceful exchange of power are. One thing is yet to be mentioned, is that even after all that the democracy and process of its attainment will face difficulties and failures no matter what, but these missteps or bumps should not discourage the will for democratization.


During the last three decades Brazil transitioned from a backdrop country ruled by a military dictatorship with collapsed economy to be a successful democracy and one of the largest economies in the world. And although it still faces serious issues, especially with regard to social justice, equality, corruption, and political uncertainty its experience is one to be studied and examined carefully by any seeker of democratization, as it’s a relevant issue for many countries today especially in the Arab region.


1)- Books

  1. English books

–  Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. Which identified elements and determinants of democratization.

–  Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. JHU Press, 1996. Provides analysis of numerous regions of the world.

–  Linz, Juan José. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

–  Remmer, Karen L. “The Process of Democratization in Latin America.” Studies In Comparative International Development 27, no. 4 (December 1, 1992): 3–24.

–   Camp, Roderic Ai. Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles. Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.

–  Don Share, Scott Mainwaring. “Transitions Through Transaction: Democratization in Brazil and Spain,” in Selcher, Wayne A. (ed.), Political Liberalization in Brazil: Dynamics, Dilemmas, and Future Prospects. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986. Print.

–  MAINWARING, SCOTT. “Urban Popular Movements, Identity, and Democratization in Brazil.” Comparative Political Studies 20, no. 2 (July 1, 1987): 131–59.

– Grugel, Jean, and Matthew Louis Bishop. Democratization: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013.

– Allende Isabel, Qpen Veins of Latin America: Five Centuries of the Pillaee of a Continent (Monthly Review Press) ND.

– Cardoso, F. and Faletto, E., Dependencv and development in Latin America. (University of Califomia Press, 4th, ed., 1999).

      ii.            Arabic books  

– أحمدطلعت،الوجهالآخرللديمقراطية،الجزائر: المؤسسةالوطنيةللنشروالتوزيع، 1990

– د /حسنينتوفيقإبراهيم،التحولالديمقراطيوالمجتمعالمدنيفيمصر،القاهرة: ط 1

– -صامويلهانتنجتون،ترجمةد/ عبدالوهابعلوب،الموجةالثالثة: التحولالديمقراطيفيأواخرالقرنالعشرين،مركز ابن خلدون للدراسات الإنمائية ، 1993

– د /محمدالسيدسليموالسيدصدقيعابدين،التحولاتالديمقراطيةفيآسيا،مركزالدراساتالآسيوية،كليةالاقتصاد و العلوم السياسية، القاهرة ، 1999

–  /محمدالسيدسليم،تطورالسياسةالدوليةفيالقرنيين 19 و 20 ،القاهرة،دارالفجرللنشروالتوزيع،ط 3، 2008

– السيديسين،الإصلاحالعربيبينالواقعالسلطويوالسرابالديمقراطي

– مقلد, اسماعيل صبرى. العلاقات السياسية الدولية. المكتبة الاكاديمية, 1991.

2)- Articles and Periodicals

  1. English articles and periodicals

Alvarez, Angel, “Venezuela: Political Governance and Regime Change By Electoral Means.” In Jorge Dominguez and Michael Shifter, eds. Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. 4th edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2013.

Arnson, Cynthia, ed. In the Wake of War: Democratization and Internal Armed Conflict in Latin America. Stanford UP, 2012.

Chanley, V., T. Rudolph, and W. Rahn. 2000. “The Origins and Consequences of Public Trust in Government: A Time Series Analysis.” Public Opinion Quarterly 64 (3): 239-56.

Dammert, Lucia. “Security Challenges for Latin American Democratic Governance.” In Jorge Dominguez and Michael Shifter, eds. Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. 4th edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2013.

De la Torre, Carlos, and Cynthia Arnson, eds. Latin American Populism in the 21st Century. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2013.

Diamond, Larry, Marc Plattner, and Diego Abente Brun, eds. Latin America’s Struggle for Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2008.

Dominguez, Jorge and Michael Shifter, eds. Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. 4th edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2013.

Freedom House. Freedom in the World. 2016.

Isaacs, Anita. “Guatemala’s Fragile Progress.” New York Times. September 14, 2016.

Latino Barometro polls are available here:

Levitsky, Steven. “Peru: The Challenges of Democracy Without Parties.” In Jorge Dominguez and Michael Shifter, eds. Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. 4th edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2013.

Mainwairing, Scott, and Anibal Perez-Linan. “Cross Currents in Latin America.” Journal of Democracy 26:1 (January 2015): 114-27.

Myers, David. “Venezuela: Democracy or Autocracy?” In Dominguez, Jorge and Michael Shifter, eds. Constructing Democratic Governance in Latin America. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins UP, 2008.

Transparency International. Corruption Perceptions Index 2015.

Sweig, Julia. Cuba: What Everyone Needs to Know. 3rd edition. Oxford UP, 2016.

United Nations Office of Drugs and Crime. 2013 Global Study on Homicide. UN, 2014.

  1. Arabic articles and periodicals

– رضامحمدهلال،السياسةالأمريكيةتجاهأمريكااللاتينية،السياسةالدولية،أكتوبر 2002 ،العدد 150

– السيدولداباه:ديمقراطيةأمريكااللاتينيةاليسارية،الشرقالوسط،الجمعة 21 شوال 1428 ه 2 نوفمبر، 2007 العدد 10566

– السيديسين،الطريقالثالث: إيديولوجيةسياسيةجديدة،السياسةالدولية،العدد 135 ،يناير 1999

– د /عبدالرضاعليأسيرى،التحولالديمقراطيفيدولمجلسالتعاونالخليج،السياسةالدولية،العدد 167 ،جانفي 2007

– عمروعبدالكريمسعداوي،التعدديةالسياسيةفيالعالمالثالث:الجزائرنموذجا،السياسةالدولية،العدد 138 ،أكتوبر 1999

– محسنمنجيد،الولاياتالمتحدةوسباقالتسلحفيأمريكاالجنوبية،السياسةالدولية،يناير 2010 ،العدد179

– حسين، م. ش. م.، و كمال، م. م. (2016). عودة نفوذ الولايات المتحدة إلى أمريكا اللاتينية: الفرص والتحديات. المجلة العلمية ( كلية التجارة جامعة أسيوط ) – مصر، ع60 ، 149 – 179. مسترجع من

– رضامحمدهلال، “تداعياتهجرةالعمالةعلىأمريكااللاتينية”،السياسةالدولية،عدد 822 ،يوليو 2006.

– عمادجاد، “تجارفيهزيمةالتخلف”،جريدةالتحريرالمصرية،عدد 8 أكتوبر2012 .

-2 محمدالخضر،قراءةفيالدورالسياسيللأممالمتحدة،ط 8 دمشق: دارحازمللطباعةوالنشر، 2001.

3)- web sites

      i.        English sites

– Spain and Latin America.” Accessed November 11, 2017.

– The Carnation Revolution – A Peaceful Coup in Portugal.” Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, April 13–13, 2015.

– “Joao Figueiredo, Military Ruler Who Opened Brazil to Democracy, Dies at 81.” Accessed November 12, 2017.

– Snider, Colin M. “Get to Know a Brazilian – Ernesto Geisel.” Americas South and North, February 24, 2013.’

– Brooke, James, and Special to The New York Times. “In Brazil, Scathing Criticism For the Departing President.” The New York Times, March 13, 1990.

–  “Constitute.” Accessed November 12, 2017.

– AnistiaInternacionalCriticaRepressão a Protestos No Rio E Em SP.” EBC, June 13, 2013.

–  “Brazilian Anti-World Cup Protests Hit Sao Paulo and Rio – BBC News.” Accessed November 18, 2017.

–  “Anti-Corruption Protests in Brazil.” BBC News, April 13, 2015, sec. Latin America & Caribbean.

–  “Rousseff Impeachment Vote: President Calls It a ‘Coup’ – CNN.” Accessed November 18, 2017.

     ii.        Arabic sites 

[1]حسين, محمد شاكر محمد. “السياسة الأمريكية تجاه أمريكا اللاتينية في الفترة ١٩٩٣-٢٠٠٨ : المكسيك كحالة دراسة.” CU Theses 0, no. 0 (2012).

[2]Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. Which identified elements and determinants of democratization.

[3]Linz, Juan J., and Alfred Stepan. Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. JHU Press, 1996. Provides analysis of numerous regions of the world.

[4]Linz, Juan José. The Breakdown of Democratic Regimes: Crisis, Breakdown, and Reequilibration. Johns Hopkins University Press, 1978.

[5]Remmer, Karen L. “The Process of Democratization in Latin America.” Studies In Comparative International Development 27, no. 4 (December 1, 1992): 3–24.

[6] Camp, Roderic Ai. Democracy in Latin America: Patterns and Cycles. Rowman & Littlefield, 1996.

[7]Don Share, Scott Mainwaring. “Transitions Through Transaction: Democratization in Brazil and Spain,” in Selcher, Wayne A. (ed.), Political Liberalization in Brazil: Dynamics, Dilemmas, and Future Prospects. Boulder: Westview Press, 1986. Print.

[8]MAINWARING, SCOTT. “Urban Popular Movements, Identity, and Democratization in Brazil.” Comparative Political Studies 20, no. 2 (July 1, 1987): 131–59.

[9]Grugel, Jean, and Matthew Louis Bishop. Democratization: A Critical Introduction. Palgrave Macmillan, 2013. P 5.


[11]Huntington, Samuel P. The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press, 1993. P 9.

[12]MacLachlan, Colin M. A History of Modern Brazil: The Past Against the Future. Rowman & Littlefield, 2003. P 150.

[13] Mainwaring, Scott, The transition to democracy in Brazil, p 5.



[16]Alves, Maria Helena Moreira. State and Opposition in Military Brazil. University of Texas Press, 2014.

[17]Brazilian democratic transition: elements for the analysis of a possible transition in China. P 6.

[18]“The Carnation Revolution – A Peaceful Coup in Portugal.” Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, April 13–13, 2015.

[19]“Spain and Latin America.” Accessed November 11, 2017.


[21]“The Carnation Revolution – A Peaceful Coup in Portugal.” Association for Diplomatic Studies and Training, April 13–13, 2015.

[22]Mainwaring, Scott, The transition to democracy in Brazil, p 23.

[23]Snider, Colin M. “Get to Know a Brazilian – Ernesto Geisel.” Americas South and North, February 24, 2013.

[24]“Joao Figueiredo, Military Ruler Who Opened Brazil to Democracy, Dies at 81.” Accessed November 12, 2017.

[25]Snider, Colin M. “Get to Know a Brazilian – Ernesto Geisel.” Americas South and North, February 24, 2013.

[26]Brooke, James, and Special to The New York Times. “In Brazil, Scathing Criticism For the Departing President.” The New York Times, March 13, 1990.

[27]“Constitute.” Accessed November 12, 2017.

[28]Anuatti-Neto, Francisco, Milton Barossi-Filho, Antonio Gledson de Carvalho, and Roberto Macedo. “OsEfeitosDaPrivatizaçãoSobre O DesempenhoEconômico E Financeiro Das EmpresasPrivatizadas.” RevistaBrasileira de Economia 59, no. 2 (June 2005): 151–75.


[30]“Brazil – Franco’s Presidency, 1992-94.” Accessed November 12, 2017.

[31]Brooke, James. “Brazilians Vote Down Kings and Keep Presidents.” The New York Times, April 22, 1993.


[33]“Brazil’s Ex-President Accomplished Much.” The New York Times, May 31, 1995.

[34]“‘Che Guevara in Tweed’; as He’d Be the First to Say, Cardoso Made Brazil a Better Country.” Newsweek International, March 13, 2006.

[35]“Latin America in the 1970s: ‘Operation Condor’, an International Organization for Kidnapping Opponents – L’Humanité in English.” Accessed November 13, 2017.

[36]Nohlen, D (2005) Elections in the Americas: A data handbook, Volume II, p234 ISBN 978-0-19-928358-3.

[37]La AgenciaLatinoamericana de Información – ALAI. 16 August 2007. Retrieved 13 November 2017.

[38]Visentini, Paulo G. Fagundes, and André Luiz Reis da Silva. “Brazil and the Economic, Political, and Environmental Multilateralism: The Lula Years (2003-2010).” RevistaBrasileira de PolíticaInternacional 53, no. SPE (December 2010): 54–72.

[39]Almeida, Paulo Roberto de. “Never before Seen in Brazil: Luis Inácio Lula Da Silva’s Grand Diplomacy.” RevistaBrasileira de PolíticaInternacional 53, no. 2 (2010): 160–77.

[40]“Brazil Communist Party of Brazil – Flags, Maps, Economy, History, Climate, Natural Resources, Current Issues, International Agreements, Population, Social Statistics, Political System.” Accessed November 16, 2017.

[41]“Revolutionary Movement 8th October | Project Gutenberg Central – eBooks | Read eBooks Online.” Accessed November 16, 2017.

[42]Archdiocese of São Paulo (1998). Torture in Brazil. Austin, TX: University of Texas Press. ISBN 0-292-70484-4.

[43]Rose, R. S. (2005). The unpast: elite violence and social control in Brazil, 1954-2000. Ohio University Press. pp. 170–178. ISBN 978-0-89680-243-8.

[44]Siaroff, Alan. “Building Democratic Institutions: Party Systems in Latin AmericaMainwaring Scott and Scully Timothy R., Eds. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1995, Pp. Xix, 578 Electoral Laws and the Survival of Presidential DemocraciesJones Mark P.Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, 1995, Pp. Xii, 246.” Canadian Journal of Political Science 30, no. 1 (1997): 169–71. doi:10.1017/S0008423900015146.


[46]Samuels, David. “From Socialism to Social Democracy: Party Organization and The Transformation of the Workers’ Party in Brazil”. Comparative Political Studies. p. 3.

[47] Anders Corr, No trespassing!: squatting, rent strikes, and land struggles worldwide. New York: South End Press, 1999, ISBN 0-89608-595-3, page 146

[48]“البرازيل | Data.” Accessed November 18, 2017.

[49]“AnistiaInternacionalCriticaRepressão a Protestos No Rio E Em SP.” EBC, June 13, 2013.

[50]“Brazilian Anti-World Cup Protests Hit Sao Paulo and Rio – BBC News.” Accessed November 18, 2017.

[51]“Anti-Corruption Protests in Brazil.” BBC News, April 13, 2015, sec. Latin America & Caribbean.

[52]“Rousseff Impeachment Vote: President Calls It a ‘Coup’ – CNN.” Accessed November 18, 2017.

5/5 - (2 صوتين)

المركز الديمقراطى العربى

المركز الديمقراطي العربي مؤسسة مستقلة تعمل فى اطار البحث العلمى والتحليلى فى القضايا الاستراتيجية والسياسية والاقتصادية، ويهدف بشكل اساسى الى دراسة القضايا العربية وانماط التفاعل بين الدول العربية حكومات وشعوبا ومنظمات غير حكومية.

مقالات ذات صلة

اترك تعليقاً

لن يتم نشر عنوان بريدك الإلكتروني. الحقول الإلزامية مشار إليها بـ *

زر الذهاب إلى الأعلى