What if Brazil never got rid of it's monarchy?

[Sardar]

I am thoroughly fascinated by the implications of a Brazil which keeps the monarchy, not least of which are the international knock-on effects. Brazil and Brazilians are already kinda iffy on being included in the idea of Latin America (correct me if I'm wrong on that) and having a European-style monarchy, stable parliamentary government and likely a upper/upper-middle income economy as the largest country in the Western Hemisphere other than the US.

Add on to that, Brazilian culture ITTL would be even more European influenced, as without the Old Republic you likely see greater European immigration and a White-majority Brazil (50-60%?). Brazil would be quite firmly closer to Western Europe than to places like Guatemala and Bolivia (in many respects it already is, but perception would be even more skewed towards Europe). Economically it would be harder to predict, seeing the trajectory of similar countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece) etc.

 

[RedRobyn]

I think the permanent survival of the Empire is ultimately speaking impossible. Emperor or no Emperor you would still have an agrarian economy heavily dependent on coffee and oppressive elites. And thus it would also have significant social agitation, rebellions, and likely a coup d'etat at the start of the 20th century.
The main change would be that Brazil would likely remain a centralized country instead of adopting federalism.

 

[Taunay]

I am thoroughly fascinated by the implications of a Brazil which keeps the monarchy, not least of which are the international knock-on effects. Brazil and Brazilians are already kinda iffy on being included in the idea of Latin America (correct me if I'm wrong on that) and having a European-style monarchy, stable parliamentary government and likely a upper/upper-middle income economy as the largest country in the Western Hemisphere other than the US.

Add on to that, Brazilian culture ITTL would be even more European influenced, as without the Old Republic you likely see greater European immigration and a White-majority Brazil (50-60%?). Brazil would be quite firmly closer to Western Europe than to places like Guatemala and Bolivia (in many respects it already is, but perception would be even more skewed towards Europe). Economically it would be harder to predict, seeing the trajectory of similar countries (Portugal, Spain, Italy, Greece) etc.

Yeah, as a Brazilian I'm also fascinated by this.

 

[holycookie]

I think the permanent survival of the Empire is ultimately speaking impossible.

If the empire is not ended in this revolt, it will last until modern timed. This is mainly due to the monarchy's biggest problem at the time, which was the lack of an heir. There were problems with the agraral elections and the church, but a good part of this elite will end up being executed with the destruction of the rebellion.

Emperor or no Emperor you would still have an agrarian economy heavily dependent on coffee and oppressive elites. And thus it would also have significant social agitation, rebellions, and likely a coup d'etat at the start of the 20th century.The main change would be that Brazil would likely remain a centralized country instead of adopting federalism.

If the empire is not removed from power during this period, it will not be overthrown.
The republict was the time when Brazil was ruled exclusively by the military, who are historically incompetent when it comes to administration and the economy. Not only that but the army was divided, with many battalions remaining loyal to the monarchy, the Army had only two large groups loyal to the republican ideal. the first president had to carrying out a witch hunt and ended up killing a good part of the royalist officials who considered positivism a stupid idea.
Due to the support given, the Provisional Government suffered great pressure from the Oligarchies to write the first Republican Constitution of the country. They were Inspired by the Magna Carta of the United States. Creating Brazil as a Federative Republic (United States of Brazil), presidential and with open voting (only for literate men). The Provisional Government removed from their positions the then “presidents” of the provinces (which came to be called states) and placed their allies (members of the agrarian elite who obviously were not bureaucrats) who treated the states as their fiefdoms.

Brazil entered a financial crisis after the economic reform led by the then Minister of Finance Rui Barbosa, which aimed to encourage industrialization and was based on the release of bank credits guaranteed by currency issues intended to finance industrial projects. The failure of the government project was due to the boycott promoted by speculators linked to landowners, importers and foreign investors who, through ghost companies, flooded the financial market with shares without capital backing. Consequences such as price inflation, bankruptcies and distrust in financial institutions dragged on for years. Together, there were two gigantic revolts, one led by the navy in 1893 (loyal to the idea of monarchy) that wanted the military out of power and the second that started in Rio Grande do Sul between two parties that disputed power. On one side were the federalists (maragatos), representatives of the elite of the Liberal Party of the Empire; on the other, the historic republicans (woodpeckers), from the Rio-Grandense Republican Party. The conflict eventually turned into a bitter civil war.

The country was in turmoil for a long time while the monarchists and republicans killed each other. Not to mention the dozens of minor revolts, political assassinations, brain drain, creation of favelas (together with the golden law, which freed slaves, a law would come that would provide a piece of land in the interior of the country for each family of free blacks and a monetary competition to help them start life. This law never came due to republicans), the refusal to use the empire's railroad creation plans and basically doing nothing in relation to the infrastructure problem, waste the economic booms and the introduction of gambling addiction to the nation as a whole. The republic did more than federalize the country, it killed an idea of a nation that was being built for almost a century by creating a latin america republic. Not to mention that the coup was carried out in desperation because the republican cause was losing strength.

 

[John I of Brazil]

I think the permanent survival of the Empire is ultimately speaking impossible. Emperor or no Emperor you would still have an agrarian economy heavily dependent on coffee and oppressive elites. And thus it would also have significant social agitation, rebellions, and likely a coup d'etat at the start of the 20th century.
The main change would be that Brazil would likely remain a centralized country instead of adopting federalism.

It would depend on how the monarchy would adapt to the situation. Based on what happened in OTL, the most likely outcomes are for the country to end up like Portugal, Italy or Spain: there's an authoritarian nationalist coup, like Vargas' Estado Novo, that weakens or outright abolished the monarchy, and the system can either try to stay or come back or be permanently abolished.

OTOH, there are probably some possibilities they could reform enough to prevent their fall, which we could discuss here.

 

[ahmedali]

I guess the two intrinsic aspects of monarchy (hereditary succession, and the monarchs themselves) are the downfall of the system.

You take a look at the modern day European constitutional monarchies and the royals are always embroiled in tabloid fodder. Even if their succession is secure, they're always being made to abdicate because of financial corruption or something.

Guess that would have been inevitable for Brazil? It's a bit of a shame, would be novel to have a non-Commonwealth New World monarchy. Did the republic that immediately replaced the empire do a better job at governing?

Not right

The monarchy was at the height of its popularity and only because Pedro was so depressed could he easily abdicate

If his life had been happier, he would have suppressed the coup and suppressed the elite coffee merchants and slaveholders.

 

[ahmedali]

It would depend on how the monarchy would adapt to the situation. Based on what happened in OTL, the most likely outcomes are for the country to end up like Portugal, Italy or Spain: there's an authoritarian nationalist coup, like Vargas' Estado Novo, that weakens or outright abolished the monarchy, and the system can either try to stay or come back or be permanently abolished.

OTOH, there are probably some possibilities they could reform enough to prevent their fall, which we could discuss here.

I don't believe in that

Unless you make Pedro Henrique like his son, that is questionable

(The man refused the army's offer to restore the monarchy in 1964 when they approached him.)

Even Pedro's daughter, Isabel, I not suspect will support fascism

 

[Mecanimetales]

As a Venezuelan who never gave much importance to Brazilian history, reading all these posts is really interesting.

In my country we were always brainwashed in our schools (even highschools) that monarchy in Brazil was a terrible European experiment that ravaged the biggest of our American brothers. But surprise! Ironically the desired republic ended being worst than the monarchy (although from what I see in the posts, not even the people wanted a republic in Brazil).

 

[John I of Brazil]

I don't believe in that

Unless you make Pedro Henrique like his son, that is questionable

(The man refused the army's offer to restore the monarchy in 1964 when they approached him.)

Even Pedro's daughter, Isabel, I not suspect will support fascism

I wouldn't deny that possibility. Princess Isabel was known for being very catholic, to the point she actually had a disagreement with her father on the relationship with the Catholic Church (the emperor was more liberal), so I could see her supporting some right-wing highly catholic group.

However, even if the country ended up falling into some dictatorship in the 1920s or 1930, that doesn't mean the monarchy will fall. A good possibility would be to have a monarchist version of Getúlio Vargas (the guy who became dictator in our timeline). Besides being a competent leader who encouraged industrialization, Vargas was also smart enough to side with the allies in WW2 and was deposed relatively early compared to his equivalents in Portugal and Spain. He got back to power later, as an elected president instead. Maybe such relatively "benevolent" dictatorship wouldn't affect the monarchy.

 

[ahmedali]

I wouldn't deny that possibility. Princess Isabel was known for being very catholic, to the point she actually had a disagreement with her father on the relationship with the Catholic Church (the emperor was more liberal), so I could see her supporting some right-wing highly catholic group.

However, even if the country ended up falling into some dictatorship in the 1920s or 1930, that doesn't mean the monarchy will fall. A good possibility would be to have a monarchist version of Getúlio Vargas (the guy who became dictator in our timeline). Besides being a competent leader who encouraged industrialization, Vargas was also smart enough to side with the allies in WW2 and was deposed relatively early compared to his equivalents in Portugal and Spain. He got back to power later, as an elected president instead. Maybe such relatively "benevolent" dictatorship wouldn't affect the monarchy.

Actually only in religion

Her political views are liberal like her father's

(She supported the right to vote for women and the emancipation of slaves, as well as her admiration for factories during her visit to the United Kingdom, and she has an open mind and a sharp politician)

I don't think Brazil will become a dictatorship

(As one of the members said, they will try to distinguish themselves from the rest of South America as much as possible, one of which is not having a dictatorship.

 

[John I of Brazil]

Actually only in religion

Her political views are liberal like her father's

(She supported the right to vote for women and the emancipation of slaves, as well as her admiration for factories during her visit to the United Kingdom, and she has an open mind and a sharp politician)

Being liberal on some values does not mean completely anti-authoritarian.

The Constitution Emperor Peter I imposed for Brazil was much more liberal than the project made by the Constitutional Assembly, yet the fact he dissolved the Constitutional Assembly and imposed a constitution based on his ideals doesn't isn't less authoritarian.

Getúlio Vargas became famous for instituting Labour laws that greatly benefited the Brazilian workers, and he also made women's suffrage a right. That doesn't make him less of a dictator.

don't think Brazil will become a dictatorship

(As one of the members said, they will try to distinguish themselves from the rest of South America as much as possible, one of which is not having a dictatorship.

1)Trying does not mean succeeding, and 2) Having a dictatorship was also a trend in most of 1930s Europe, and one which wouldn't be easy to avert.

 

[ahmedali]

Being liberal on some values does not mean completely anti-authoritarian.

The Constitution Emperor Peter I imposed for Brazil was much more liberal than the project made by the Constitutional Assembly, yet the fact he dissolved the Constitutional Assembly and imposed a constitution based on his ideals doesn't isn't less authoritarian.

Getúlio Vargas became famous for instituting Labour laws that greatly benefited the Brazilian workers, and he also made women's suffrage a right. That doesn't make him less of a dictator.

1)Trying does not mean succeeding, and 2) Having a dictatorship was also a trend in most of 1930s Europe, and one which wouldn't be easy to avert.

In fact Pedro I was more authoritarian and the first constitution rejected him because it seemed too radical for his taste

Norway Sweden Denmark United Kingdom Belgium Netherlands Luxembourg France Switzerland did not become dictatorships

 

[holycookie]

In my country we were always brainwashed in our schools (even highschools) that monarchy in Brazil was a terrible European experiment that ravaged the biggest of our American brothers. But surprise! Ironically the desired republic ended being worst than the monarchy (although from what I see in the posts, not even the people wanted a republic in Brazil).

The probable reason for this is the dispute between the Empire of Brazil and Bolivar, the empire disturbed the plan of bolivar of a gigantic Hispanic nation. Either through sending soldiers to Bolivia preventing the advance of republican troops or through diplomacy, boycotting important meetings created by Bolivar. Putting this together with the fact that imperial Brazil is imperialist and has the desire to be the hegemony of South America and we have the reason why the Brazilian empire is frowned upon by its neighbors (that and the extermination of Paraguay).

 

[holycookie]

Being liberal on some values does not mean completely anti-authoritarian.

brazil due to its size and culture tends to have more authoritarian leaders (even if they are competent) due to the fact that this is the fastest way to organize the country.But authoritarianism is not dictatorship, the country would not be a dictatorship, but it would probably be authoritarian. Well with the continuation of the empire probably indicates greater Arab immigration.

 

[John I of Brazil]

In fact Pedro I was more authoritarian and the first constitution rejected him because it seemed too radical for his taste

It was radical in the sense it drastically limited the power of the monarch, making them more of a figurehead, and allowed a more decentralized administration. However, it was very conservative in everything else.

For example, when it came to voting rights, the Assembly's project only allowed those with a minimum income of 150 alqueires of cassava plantation to vote. The only kind of people who would have such large plantations were rich slaveowners who needed cassava to feed their slaves. It was even nicknamed the "Cassava Constitution" (Constituição da Mandioca) by the people

The emperor's constitution, on the other hand, established suffrage based purely on wealth, thus allowing moderately rich people who weren't landowners to vote.

 

[Sardar]

I think an optimistic view for what most importantly is the survival of the parliamentary democracy of Brazil (because that is essentially what we want to get with a monarchical survival) is the reforms which were being implemented in the 1880's continue into the 1890's, and Brazil is fully enmeshed in the Western era of "La Belle Epoque" with a peaceful and generally prosperous, but still horribly unequal, nation. The planned federalist reforms would likely take place, as would legislative reform.

With a government which is not completely insane and run by up jumped coffee barons (at least not in its entirety) Brazil could realistically leapfrog Chile and Argentina in the South American naval race, and generally militarily speaking.

The diplomatic effects of keeping the well-respected Imperial family on the throne would only be a boost, ESPECIALLY if one of Pedro II's sons survives, as his wife would likely be German as there weren't too many Bourbon/Orleans brides to go around that weren't already taken during the time period. A German (Bavarian or Austrian would be best) wife for one of Pedro's sons would not only connect him to the other families of Europe, but elevate the Brazilian monarchy's status even more. Pedro II had difficulty finding a bride because of how Europe looked down on the first American monarchy, and being well-connected would help alleviate this problem.

The 20's are where things start to get a little harder to predict. IOTL this was globally a time of immense instability and where social and political movements that had never been seen before arose. Brazil would be no different than it's cultural cousins in Europe and the Americas in that regard, so with a freer and more prosperous society you would likely see greater support not just for liberal and social democratic causes, but also communism, socialism, facism, etc.

 

[Taunay]

I think an optimistic view for what most importantly is the survival of the parliamentary democracy of Brazil (because that is essentially what we want to get with a monarchical survival) is the reforms which were being implemented in the 1880's continue into the 1890's, and Brazil is fully enmeshed in the Western era of "La Belle Epoque" with a peaceful and generally prosperous, but still horribly unequal, nation. The planned federalist reforms would likely take place, as would legislative reform.

With a government which is not completely insane and run by up jumped coffee barons (at least not in its entirety) Brazil could realistically leapfrog Chile and Argentina in the South American naval race, and generally militarily speaking.

The diplomatic effects of keeping the well-respected Imperial family on the throne would only be a boost, ESPECIALLY if one of Pedro II's sons survives, as his wife would likely be German as there weren't too many Bourbon/Orleans brides to go around that weren't already taken during the time period. A German (Bavarian or Austrian would be best) wife for one of Pedro's sons would not only connect him to the other families of Europe, but elevate the Brazilian monarchy's status even more. Pedro II had difficulty finding a bride because of how Europe looked down on the first American monarchy, and being well-connected would help alleviate this problem.

The 20's are where things start to get a little harder to predict. IOTL this was globally a time of immense instability and where social and political movements that had never been seen before arose. Brazil would be no different than it's cultural cousins in Europe and the Americas in that regard, so with a freer and more prosperous society you would likely see greater support not just for liberal and social democratic causes, but also communism, socialism, facism, etc.

With Brazil developing earlier, it could syphon off much of the immigration that IOTL went to Argentina.

 

[Sardar]

With Brazil developing earlier, it could syphon off much of the immigration that IOTL went to Argentina.

During the same period of 1890-1914 I'm not so sure, maybe a little, but perhaps later on. Brazil still has a gigantic black population which competes for jobs and land against immigrants. Probably later in the 20th century.

 

[Taunay]

During the same period of 1890-1914 I'm not so sure, maybe a little, but perhaps later on. Brazil still has a gigantic black population which competes for jobs and land against immigrants. Probably later in the 20th century.

IOTL the black population was simply ignored and the government gave land and jobs to Europeans.
Maybe the same happens ITTL

 

[Janprimus]

(...)
You take a look at the modern day European constitutional monarchies and the royals are always embroiled in tabloid fodder. Even if their succession is secure, they're always being made to abdicate because of financial corruption or something.
(...)

On what do you base this? Sure there are occasional scandals, but this very rarely leads to a forced abdication. The European Constitutional Parliamentary Monarchies are actually quite strong, stronger than most Republics.