Legacy of the 1964 coup in Brazil without the dictatorship?

[Gukpard]

So, when the brazilian 1964 coup happened the expectative was not of a dictatorship, but that the coup would force Castello Branco to be our dictator for about one year until the 1965 election and then the military would leave power and the 1946 republic would continue on, as a soft coup like many in brazilian history. This doctrine had the name of the "surgycal" intervention, Castello argued that Brazil was like a patient of a hospital who need to be internet fast, take a surgery to "remove communism" and then be sent back home, thus shortly after the coup he made the quote that "I will finish the Quadros Mandate" in reference to the mandate of Jânio Quadros from january 31th of 1961 that would expire on the same day in 1965. Of course as the months went on the government got more and more authoritarian until on the second instutitional act Castello got his mandate extended until 1967 before closing all parties and funding two puppet parties and thus the dictatorship lasted until 1985. Let's say that the coup happens, Castello purges all the left wingers he can by giving them the "10 year" ban from politics and the 1965 elections happen with Juscelino being reelected or Lacerda (One great name was Leonel Brizola but he would be unable to compete, most likely for being purged of his political rights), how would the 1964 coup be seen today?

Calling all the brazilian experts, @Guilherme Loureiro @Dan1988 @Vinization , @John Fredrick Parker , etc

 

[Vinization]

That depends on what sort of administration we get later. If it's a horrifically incompetent one that ends up suffering a successful coup, we could see the 1964 attempt as a predecessor to the successful thing, much like the attempts to overthrow Getúlio Vargas and later Juscelino Kubitschek.

On the other hand, if we get a reasonably competent/decent administration that consolidates our democracy (a bit more likely to happen, since two of the frontrunners were Juscelino and Leonel Brizola, though the latter could be really dangerous), we would probably look at it as a dodged bullet that came REALLY close.

 

[Gukpard]

That depends on what sort of administration we get later. If it's a horrifically incompetent one that ends up suffering a successful coup, we could see the 1964 attempt as a predecessor to the successful thing, much like the attempts to overthrow Getúlio Vargas and later Juscelino Kubitschek.

On the other hand, if we get a reasonably competent/decent administration that consolidates our democracy (a bit more likely to happen, since two of the frontrunners were Juscelino and Leonel Brizola, though the latter could be really dangerous), we would probably look at it as a dodged bullet that came REALLY close.

The problem I see is that the other coups got aborted, in 1964 the army went for the streets and crushed down the president, so I think that it would inaugurate a dangerous precedent of the army seeing itself as the organization that should be crushing governments over and over again at the minimun sight of a left wing policy, it could get really bad if someone like JK tries to low the military spending for some reason for example.

 

[Guilherme Loureiro]

The problem I see is that the other coups got aborted, in 1964 the army went for the streets and crushed down the president, so I think that it would inaugurate a dangerous precedent of the army seeing itself as the organization that should be crushing governments over and over again at the minimun sight of a left wing policy, it could get really bad if someone like JK tries to low the military spending for some reason for example.

The Armed Forces already saw themselves as that; or, putting it in a different way, they saw themselves as guardians of the Republic, and (mostly) saw communism as the most dangerous enemy of the Republic. I wouldn't quite say they would be going at the first "leftist" policy, but after Goulart supported (in their eyes) the breaking of the chain of command(the Sailors' Strike), their tolerance with future governments would be quite reduced.

I do think that a 1964 coup that doesn't end in a military regime will pave the way for a future coup(probably after 1973), and the chance of a military dictatorship rises significantly. I also think this future coup would get the bad reputation, not the 64 one

 

[Vinization]

The problem I see is that the other coups got aborted, in 1964 the army went for the streets and crushed down the president, so I think that it would inaugurate a dangerous precedent of the army seeing itself as the organization that should be crushing governments over and over again at the minimun sight of a left wing policy, it could get really bad if someone like JK tries to low the military spending for some reason for example.

Wait, you're suggesting a scenario where Castelo Branco is succeeded by a democratically elected president? In that case, our short term future would be awful.

First, a significant part of the electorate will be really pissed off, since there is no way in hell that the power behind the throne (the military, especially hardliners like Médici and Rademaker) would ever allow PTB or any similar parties to operate. This would lead to rising leftist violence, and a series of military coups, since the hardliners would be empowered and eager to depose anyone who looks at them wrong.

Barring the rise of some fantastic political genius who our country unfortunately probably wouldn't generate, we could have a coup that leads to a bloodbath comparable to the Argentine Dirty War.

EDIT: Also, maybe João Paulo Burnier gets his way and Rio de Janeiro suffers a horrific terrorist attack in the late sixties. That would make things even worse.