Waiting for a Meaningful State Apology: Has Brazil Apologized for Authoritarian Repression?

Abstract

This article discusses whether the Brazilian State's 1995 official apology for its systematic human rights violations during the military dictatorship (1964–1985) qualifies as a “meaningful” state apology. A meaningful state apology—an act that publicly recognizes the state's wrongdoings and expresses regret—changes the social relations between the state and groups of victims and introduces new human rights values. However, numerous post-1995 public statements (law decrees, legal appeals, Supreme Court verdicts, and official statements) effectively deny the Brazilian State's responsibility for human rights crimes. This article asks: Who wants an apology, and why? Who are the winners and losers in this contest, and why? In Brazil, it concludes, a comprehensive social and normative change within all state institutions has yet to occur. Moving beyond the criterion of the apologizer's sincerity, empirical evidence from Brazil contributes to a theory of state apologies by adding a new criterion: A state apology is meaningful if it is authoritative and supported, rather than undermined, by other sectors of the state apparatus. The final report of the Brazilian Truth Commission, which is due in 2014, presents a golden opportunity to reissue a meaningful apology, endorsed by all state institutions.

Acknowledgements

The author wishes to express her special thanks to the reviewers and the interviewees referred to in this article: Paulo Abrão, Sueli Aparecida Bellato, Marlon Weichert, Eugênia Barbosa Gonzaga, and five anonymous survivors. This article is dedicated to those who have been struggling for truth and justice in Brazil and never given up and to those who have been giving their support to these struggles, no matter what the consequences.

Notes

Scholars who elaborated on the collective nature of state apologies include Melissa Nobles (2008), Michael Cunningham (1999), and Nick Smith (2008).

I never had the privilege to interview President Lula, but I would like to ask why he did not defend the law text.