Historians can be thankful that the administrative team put together by President Humberto Castello Branco included Luís Viana Filho, who served as chief of the Casa Civil and occasionally as Justice Minister. Adding to his own recollections and notes about the three-year term (1964-1967), this distinguished politician and author has turned to the diaries of others, the Castello Branco archives, and the written observations supplied by scores of associates of the late President. Thus we can now live with Castello Branco as he dealt with the crises of his regime, with the question of his successor, and with critics such as Carlos Lacerda, José de Magalhñes Pinto, and Dom Helder Câmara. We see Castello tackling, with his well known zeal and intelligence, a mountain of problems. Some of them, such as mining policy, naval aviation, and inflation, were the result of years of past indecision. Others came about because Castello, who “detested inaction” (p. 277) and had a “passion for reforms” (p. 91), assumed that the chief mission of the 1964 revolution was to remake Brazil.
Castello, no admirer of Vargas, had long been known for his deep faith in democracy, and this was one reason for his sudden selection by successful revolutionary leaders to head the chaos-stricken nation. But his years in office are hardly an advertisement for democracy. He is repeatedly shown to have been a President who “recognized the impossibility of concomitantly courting popularity and serving the nation” (p. 548). And when he had to decide between direct and indirect elections of governors in 1966, he is described as “sacrificing his personal point of view” (favorable to direct elections) in order “to heed the interests of the Revolution” (p. 407). It was always “the interests of the Revolution,” which for Castello were identical with those of the nation, that are cited by Viana as requiring the exceptions to the principles of democratic legal order.
But, we are reminded, the President was frequently a champion of democratic institutions. Viana stresses the liberty enjoyed by the press and writes that “Castello, clinging to his convictions, defended Congress” (p. 518). Many pages are devoted to the President’s relations with the lawmakers. Fond of serious dialogue, Castello held over 7,000 audiences—approximately 2,000 of them with legislators concerned with the fate of over 700 laws, eleven constitutional amendments, and, finally, a new constitution. When unrest by hard-liners led Castello to issue Institutional Act Number Two, a setback to democratic institutions, dictator-hating Castello insisted on making himself ineligible for reelection in 1966, thus disregarding the opinions of close advisers.
Viana’s narrative is an important supplement to the splendid analyses given in many publications about post-1964 Brazil. For one thing, Viana reveals clearly the development of the administration’s thinking as problems were faced, and provides a rich store of information about the attitudes of the numerous individuals who were involved. For another thing, the fascinating main character is given special attention in the concluding chapters. We find the withdrawn tactician, who brought respect to the presidency by his every act, delighting in classical music and erudite books. He was modest and courteous, and usually good-humored (with a tendency to joke ironically). Deeply sentimental, he was sometimes moved to tears, as in the case of the speechmaking when Osvaldo Cordeiro de Farias left the cabinet.
Viana’s words about Castello’s character and habits sometimes seem like a propaganda piece, overly rich in describing perfection. But, as has been made evident by those in a position to comment on Castello’s life in the army, this is not Viana’s fault. The author has chosen to write about the presidency when it was in the hands of a remarkable individual.
