This useful book on the contemporary Brazilian political system concentrates on recent military politics—the most important aspect of the governing process in Brazil since President João Goulart was ousted by a military-civilian conspiracy in 1964. Although a political scientist, the author has cast most of his treatment in chronological form, with the heart of the book (chapters IV-VIII) consisting of a year-by-year narrative. Emphasis is given to the maneuverings within the higher military ranks (promotions, transfers, retirements, etc.), which have been the key to understanding the formation of the officer “consensus” that has decided all major political questions. Schneider’s narrative style remains close to the events he describes, and will be best appreciated by Brazilian specialists.
The author acknowledges that Brazil has steadily become “all but a naked dictatorship” since 1964, with systematic repression endemic in the system. He shows clearly how Castelo Branco’s elaborate legal formulae were soon swept away when the military government was faced with a growing popular challenge in 1968. Most interesting is the author’s thesis that a “revolution within the revolution” is virtually certain. The system is described as inherently unstable, with “deeper cleavages” continuously arising within the military ranks. The key is the “influence span of a leadership generation.” Not surprisingly, the author is unable to throw much light on the mentality of the new generation of officers, who in the past have presumably been the backbone of the “hard line” urging a more authoritarian regime.
Schneider is at his weakest in attempting to explain the causes for the deepening involvement of the military in Brazilian politics. The fear of authentic popular mobilization, the ferocious reaction to ideological heterogeneity, and the ready acceptance of socially regressive policies (such as the reduction of real wages between 1964 and 1968) suggest a pattern that is given little analysis here.
Although valuable as a reference work, this book explains less than its subtitle promises. Despite the author’s labors, the “theoretical” diversions add little to his work’s substantial contribution: a detailed chronological narrative based on extensive reading and frequent interviews with many of the principals.
