The Left Berlin News & Comment

This is the archive template

Omas Gegen Rechts Berlin

Diversity, Human Dignity, Justice, Rersponsibility, Participation, Solidarity


OMAS GEGEN RECHTS BEERLIN (Grannies Against the Far Right) was formed in Berlin in early 2018 as a non-partisan civil society initiative, following the group Omas Gegen Rechts which has been working in Austria since 2017.

The number of Omas Gegen Rechts initiatives grew quickly. There are currently several Omas Gegen Rechts groups in Berlin, each with its own focus.

Every granny can become active as a political force, and organise joint resistance with other grannies. The can raise their voice against the dissemination of agitation, intimidation and lies from the right wing.

Engaged women, identified by the initiative as Omas are, because of their life experience, vigilant and loud for the protection of parliamentary democracy and for social peace – for our children and grandchildren.


Political friends from all generations are welcome at out actions.

On Monday, 30th January, Omas Gegen Reichts Berlin are once more mobilising against right wing conspiracy theorists and antisemites. Under the slogan “We are Diversity”, the protest will take place at Stargarder Straße 77, near S-Bahn Schönhauser Allee.

You can read more about Omas Gegen Rechts Berlin on their website.

Roars from the Leopard – But What Lies Behind its Spots?

Germany’s reluctance to supply Leopard tanks is a proxy for its geopolitical tussles with the USA


Ukraine, in the midst of desperately battling the Russian invasion, increasingly and fervently demands more weapons. Zelensky calls for 300 tanks urgently. But a seasoned USA war-lord – ex-Lt Gen Ben Hodges – the previous commander of European based NATO forces Ben Hodges to caution: “There is no silver bullet out there. There is no one thing that’s just going to completely change the whole conflict.”

Meanwhile intense political pressure focuses on Germany. Why? This observer believes two facts explain this. First the invasion of Ukraine has unmasked inter-imperialist tensions within NATO; and secondly the particular history of Germany following the Second World War. We can address these after comparing the real capability of the tanks in question, and the differing views within the US establishment.

What is in contention?

Of three suppliers of modern heavy tanks: British Challengers, US Abrams, or German Leopards; the two leading contenders are the USA and Germany. Britain has committed after long delays 12 Challenger tanks, but these are not the most sought after tanks: “The German-made Leopard 2 is one of the most well-reputed battle tanks in the world, perhaps second only to the U.S.-made M1 Abrams tank, military arms experts said.”

The potential of the tanks lies in breaking Russia’s hold on the Crimea: “With tanks from the West, Ukraine could create an armored brigade that could serve as “the spearhead of a force that could break through those Russian defenses down towards Mariupol,” Hodges said. “The purpose is to continue the isolation of Crimea from everything else.”

Much to the fury of the US Pentagon, the German leadership has explicitly linked sending of German tanks to sending of US tanks. A last minute surprise replacement of the German Defence Minister, the gaffe-prone Christine Lambrecht, installed an evidently tougher Boris Pistorius. After the NATO-USA led Ramstein conference of 20 January, 2023, Pistorius simply said: “officials were still evaluating the pros and cons of sending the tanks… I am very sure there will be a decision in the short term,” he said.

…which European country will be the lead within EU, serving as the primary ‘façade’ for the USA. Since Brexit, that ‘prestigious seat’ remains unfilled.

Why the US Pentagon is refusing to send Abrams

The argument against ceding Abrams was given by Pentagon spokesperson Sabrina Singh:

“The maintenance and the high cost that it would take to maintain an Abrams — it just doesn’t make sense to provide that to the Ukrainians at this moment.”


“Scholz wants to be in lockstep with the US Rep. Seth Moulton told CNN after discussing the matter with Scholz this week in Davos. “I think the US should give a few tanks if that is what is required for Germany. That is called leadership.”

How do the two tanks compare?

I compiled the following table to make clear that the only difference is in the fuel used; and the cost of each tank (See

Comparison Brennan Newsweek; and compare tanks EU ).

Production started


1980 Chrysler

Leopard 2

1979 Krauss-Maffei; MTU Friederichshafen

Number built since




Gulf War, Afghanistan, Iraq War, Yemeni Civil War

Afghanistan, Syrian Civil War



Used by

9 nations

21 nations

Top speed

42 mph forward; 25 reverse 25 mph

42.4 mph forward;

19.2 mph reverse

Range pre re-fueling

264 miles

173 miles

Armor thickness



Direct losses in battle


Several’ in Turkey

Range and number of 120 mm shells

>2.5 miles; 40

Around 3 miles; 42

Unit cost

$8.58 million

$5.74 million

However, new German tanks are backlogged:

“German weapons manufacturer Rheinmetall, which supplies the Leopard 2’s cannon and electronics and has dozens of older models, has warned it would not
able to deliver its tanks to Ukraine until 2024 due to the need to refurbish and repair them.” It is impossible to provide new Leopards quickly for historical reasons: “it is all but impossible to buy a large amount of Leopard 2 tanks quickly. Germany’s defence industry is banned by law from producing them for stock-keeping. Countries ordering new tanks need to be prepared to wait two to three years for delivery. Even if production were ramped up, experts say it could take at least two years for the first new tanks to leave the factory.”

Hence those countries who have previously purchased them are urging Germany to release their contract, enabling them to send their own purchases to Ukraine. Germany has not been forthcoming – why not?

Two potential reasons for German insistence on combined aid

The first reason is quite simple – Germany was itself devastated by the Second World War it’s fascist leaders had led. The anti-war feeling in a large part of the population that remained is not to be scoffed at. It is quite true that after the last year, the majority resisting tank aid to Ukraine has decreased to just under a half of the surveyed population. Yet the anti-war sentiment in Germany is still strong, and fears of a new European war are high. Kiev is not far from Berlin. And assurances by the USA of defence against a further provoked Russia, might seem the tissue of lies it is. Currently after all, the USA ‘fights to the last Ukrainian’ – and Germans see this visibly. The largest refugee population from Ukraine is in Russia, then Poland and then Germany.

But a second explanation lies in inter-imperialist tensions. These have several facets. Previously I discussed the principal one which invoked the war in the first place – between the USA and Russia. I also pointed previously out a division within the German ruling class to either becoming more pro-USA or more pro-China (and thereby also Russia). To add to these are continuing rifts within the EU itself.

France under Macron had escalated tensions over the tanks, even after an agreement between Biden and Scholz had resulted in new units. That supposedly represented a “turning point in the West’s positioning towards increased arms deliveries to Ukraine.” Finally the attempt to ‘de-industrialise’ Germany and Europe by the American wooing of German and European firms, is a major spur to France and Germany settling any disputes between themselves. A secondary matter is still potentially of importance: which European country will be the lead within EU, serving as the primary ‘façade’ for the USA. Since Brexit, that ‘prestigious seat’ remains unfilled.

How will this play out?

As pragmatists argue, it is likely that both USA and Germany will send tanks. This is predicted by Ukraine:

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba is quite certain that this is imminent: “Even if Germany should have certain rational arguments for not doing it, Germany will do it anyway at a later date. We have already seen this with the self-propelled howitzers, with the IRIS-T anti-aircraft system and most recently with the Marder and Patriot systems. It’s always a similar pattern: first they say no, then they vigorously defend their decision, only to finally say yes.”

The shrewdest American politicians urge the Pentagon to bend the knee – even if only for a few token tanks.

“Representative Michael McCaul the chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee, said on Sunday that the U.S. should send at least one of its M1 Abrams tanks to Ukraine to push Germany to allow for its own tanks…” Delaware Sen. Chris Coons spoke with German Chancellor Olaf Scholz. Coons echoed McCaul’s view “I think it’s urgent … If it requires our sending some Abrams tanks in order to unlock getting the Leopard tanks from Germany, from Poland, from other allies, I would support that,” Coons said. “I respect that our military leaders think the Abrams is too sophisticated, too expensive a platform to be as useful as the Leopards, but we need to continue to work with our close allies and to move forward in lockstep.” [1] “Pressure is mounting in some corners for the US to go ahead and send Abrams tanks simply as a way to get the Germans on board.

Ben Hodges, that retired Lieutenant General says the maintenance and logistics concerns are BS. “The U.S. should stop being so condescending

when talking about how difficult this would be for the Ukrainians, to meet the fuel requirements,” he says. “The Ukrainians will sort that out. They’ll MacGyver a solution as they’ve been doing for months—just give them the capability they need.”

Post Script

It seems every 6 hours something breaks out. As the New York Times reported on 24th January 2023: “Defense officials have repeatedly used the fuel issue to explain in part why the administration was not rushing to send the Abrams tanks to Kyiv. But while it is true the tanks have gas turbine engines that burn jet fuel, it is not the whole story, tank experts say. Abrams tanks, they say, can run on any type of fuel, including ordinary gasoline and diesel. The Pentagon press secretary, Brig. Gen. Pat Ryder, would not confirm on Tuesday news reports that the administration is on the verge of providing Ukraine with the M1 Abrams tanks…. “He did not refer to the jet fuel issue.”



Antifeminism and the women at the centre of bolsonarismo

Brazilian researchers Aline Beatriz Coutinho and Camila Galetti look at the articulations of the far-right in Brazil and its connections to gender and violence

As of writing, 493 women have been arrested for actively participating in the invasion of the Planalto, the seat of the Executive Power, the National Congress and the Federal Supreme Court in Brazil on January 8th. In total, 1,166 people have been arrested for the attempted disruption of the Brazilian democratic order, meaning 42% of those arrested are women. These women are on average 48 years old and at least six of them have political careers, one of them being a city councilwoman and the other four, deputy legislators at the municipal, state and even federal level. This information may confound expectations that the vast majority of those involved were men, despite the extreme antifeminism articulated via bolsonarismo in Brazil.

Such context is consistent with the results of the 2018 elections, which were marked by a 15% increase in female representation in the House of Representatives.  That is, of 513 deputies, 77 were women. However, most of the increase in the number of female deputies came from the far-right, mainly in former president Jair Messias Bolsonaro’s Social Liberal Party (PSL). In previous elections, the PSL did not elect any women deputies and only one man, but in 2018 the party became the second largest bench in the House of Representatives, even electing 9 female deputies. This rise is directly linked to Bolsonaro and his political influence who at the time was affiliated to the PSL, although the former president has since joined the Liberal Party (PL) in 2021, which in the 2022 elections won the largest bench in the House, having 17 women elected.

In their speeches during the 2018 election campaign, and over the course of their mandates, the elected far-right female deputies mainly mobilized antifeminist narratives and attacks on the supposed ‘gender ideology’, which has found one of its main bases in Brazil. These narratives are articulated in defence of the notion that the natural family is uniquely formed by heterosexual couples, with the social function of women being mother and wife and the goal of marriage being procreation. As such, most of the advances acquired over the decades by the feminist and LGBTQIA+ movements, such as reproductive and sexual rights, are seen as dangerous and even wrongly linked to ‘communist acts’ that are intended to destroy society. In addition, antifeminism has also become stronger, structuring a new political subject. It homogenises the category of woman and assumes that society is not based on inequalities of gender, sexuality, class and race. It is from these perspectives, of the attempt to preserve a patriarchal, colonial and capitalist power, that the electoral campaign of extreme right-wing Brazilian women candidates becomes evident when they mobilised around the Bolsonaro.

Even before the 2018 presidential election, there were several actions that can be considered glimpses into the escalation of far-right violence that took place on January 8 in Brasilia. One incident occurred in 2017 during philosopher Judith Butler’s visit to Brazil. Dozens of people gathered in front of the place where Butler was going to give a lecture, among them, young mothers organised in favor of homeschooling and other women shouting slogans such as “man is man, woman is woman, and here in Brazil you don’t do what you want!” and “burn the witch!”, the latter at the moment they set on fire a life-size doll with a picture of the philosopher’s face, dressed in a witch’s hat.

Such actions were indications that far-right discourse were spreading through a part of Brazilian society, which holds that the best way to have power is via violence. Even data on this mobilization show that 73% of the people who spoke out against Butler totally or partially agree with the statement “a military intervention could help Brazil” and that 62% of these people would vote for Jair Bolsonaro for president in 2018. Moreover, the anti-gender discourses show their strength already at this moment, with 86% of these people placing themselves against the discussion of gender in schools, reaching 96% the position that it should be the family’s responsibility to take care of teaching about sexuality to children. The demonstration against Butler’s visit to Brazil ended after four hours with the women involved sweeping the street. This could not be more symbolic of the true position of women within these conservative movements is: reiterating the roles established by patriarchy and exalted in authoritarian regimes.

It is interesting to note how much bolsonarism has captured a significant section of the female electorate. In the last elections in 2022 it was evident in the messaging of the electoral campaign of the former president, even though Bolsonaro’s record in government saw a 94% fall in investment in policies to combat violence against women. Furthermore, the unification of the Women’s Ministry with the family and human rights agenda promoted the conservation of the family nucleus, even though this was the main site of domestic violence against women and children.

Many of these women remain ardent supporters of bolsonarismo, and this can be seen in the terrorist act that took place on January 8th, where women carried out terrorist actions. These include the elderly Bolsonarist Maria de Fátima Mendonça Jacinto Souza, 67 years old, who appears in the videos proudly depredating the Supreme Court. Despite all the talk about defending “the family” or Brazil, this woman had been previously convicted of drug trafficking. Another woman, coming from the state of Minas Gerais and identified in her statement to authorities after her arrest as I. I. P., 57 years old, declared that she participated in the coup attempt because “if there were many people, I would have the support of the Army to avoid the installation of communism in Brazil,” showing her idealization of a military coup. Even in the orchestration of the acts, women were in the front line operationalizing the situation, as the example of Elizângela Cunha Pimentel, 48 years old, who turned herself in after being accused of organizing and financing the terrorist acts in Brasilia and Ana Priscila Azevedo, arrested later on the same charge with the additional charge of inciting more than 30 thousand followers via a Telegram channel, telling them “We are going to collapse the system, we are going to besiege Brasília, we are going to take the power by assault, the power that belongs to us.”

The terrorist acts of January 8th in Brazil demonstrate how the extreme right seeks to create a shared collective identity. Regarding female participation in these acts, it is important to note that although the extreme right is sexist and misogynist, it bets on female figures, thus strengthening a supposed femonationalism – which, while producing a destabilization of gender boundaries, has as one of its main agendas the promotion of the strengthening of antifeminist ideals and the fight against the supposed existence of ‘gender ideology’. Finally, it is possible to state that the extreme right strategically pushes the mobilization of women in their actions, thus producing a certain ’empowerment’ among them. This ’empowerment’ has the purpose of maintaining patriarchy and its premises, and in the case of Brazil, it also produced an attempt at political destabilization of Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s government that fortunately did not succeed – although its discourses continue to spread.

Aline Beatriz Coutinho is an associate researcher at Lab on Social Differences and Inequality and a Master’s student in History, both at the Universidade do Estado do Rio de Janeiro (UERJ), where she researches Reproductive Rights, political disputes over abortion’s issues, and gender.

Camila Galetti, is a sociologist, doctoral student at the University of Brasilia, and a researcher at the Elected Women Project (LAPPCOM-UFRJ)

In Peru the Fight Against Dina Boluarte Continues

Continued repression in Peru means that the resistance must carry on


By the Communist Party of Ecuador – ML.

The protests of the Peruvian people against the dictatorial government of Dina Boluarte have been going on for more than a month and, in recent days, have taken on higher, more combative and generalized forms. Road blocks and important demonstrations in several regions of the country have been the order of the day, highlighting those that have occurred in Puno, Arequipa, Junín, Cusco and Apurímac.

The unanimous cry of the people raised in protest is to demand the resignation of Boluarte, the closure of Congress, the immediate call for elections and the freedom of Pedro Castillo. If these demands are not met, the protests will continue in a combative manner. For their part, representatives of the government have not been able to hide a series of highly repressive measures, which seek to maneuver the circumstances and control the crisis created by the ruling classes of the neighboring country.

The police have tried to unblock the roads taken over by the thousands of demonstrators who have used stones and the burning of tires; this has been responded to in a cowardly way with abundant tear gas and, most seriously, the use of firearms by the police and military. These have already left more than 50 dead and hundreds injured and detained. The “protectors,” who have taken over public buildings and airports and carried out brutal repression against the people, have not been able to stop the protestors. They have not been intimidated and, on the contrary, their demonstrations have become more forceful, despite the warnings of the Boluarte government. It maintains the state of emergency, as the main mechanism to control the social discontent that has been seen again in the streets and plazas of the country. Everything indicates that the struggle in Peru will not decline until the demands have been met.

The exhortations of President Boluarte have been in vain. She accuses the people of “retreat, pain, economic losses,” thereby trying to hide the fact that the crisis in Peru has been caused by the anti-popular governments that are subservient to the interests of imperialism and the Peruvian ruling classes. The crisis has greatly worsened with the illegal dismissal of President Pedro Castillo through a coup d’état, supported and engineered by US imperialism.

The decision of the people is to continue with the protests despite the violent repression and the political maneuvers that have been developed by the authorities to stop them. “They must all go”, the resignation of Boluarte, the closure of Parliament, the holding of a constituent process to change the 1993 Constitution, and the call for immediate new elections are the banners that are held high.

The Peruvian Prosecutor’s Office has been forced to initiate a process of investigation into Boluarte for the crimes that have been committed against the people. However, the people do not trust that the process will be fully carried out; it may well be part of the manoeuvres that try to reduce the intensity of the struggles. Boluarte, for her part, cynically calls for peace and accuses those who protest of violence.

Originally published on En Marcha #2033, January 18-24, 2023. Translation: American party of Labor. Reproduced with permission

Fascist organization and military coup: a chronicle of the 8th of January 2023

We should stop mincing words, Jair Bolsonaro is a Fascist


by André Rodrigues and Andrés Del Río, professors at Universidade Federal Fluminense.

Jair Bolsonaro’s political extremism, of a fascist type, underwent a long  normalization, continuing through his Presidency of the republic. But the violent coup attempt of his supporters on January 8, 2023,  invading and looting of the palaces of three levels of Government in Brasilia, exposed Bolsonarism as it always was. The shocking scenes provoked international concern about Brazil, with several expressions of solidarity with the Lula government from heads of state. Finally the Brazilian corporate press started used relatively adequate terms to describe Bolsonarist extremism: “terrorists,” “coup plotters,” “anti-democratic,” “criminals,” “extremists”. These words predominated. “Fascists,” however, did not emerge in the media lexicon. The change in vocabulary is part of the normalization process.

Bolsonaro, as a parliamentarian, over three decades appeared frequently on entertainment-oriented television programs. The news media gave a lot of space to him. In his media appearances, he figured as a “polemical” politician, with forceful positions, but never extreme, or unacceptable. Bolsonaro’s “opinions” tolerated by the media, gave him an image of “authenticity”, of a politician who was not “afraid to speak his mind”. They presented him as a sincere politician when in fact he was the representative of a tiny group on the margins of democracy. He always represented hate.

The veneer of “authenticity” was a key tool to accredit Bolsonaro as a spearhead for the advance of the far right. He thus credentialed himself as a charismatic leader with, ironically, an anti-establishment stance. Meanwhile, he affirmed that nothing in Brazil would be transformed through the vote and that only a civil war, with at least 30 thousand dead, would promote change. Or that he would prefer that a son died if he was homosexual, or that he wouldn’t rape a federal representative because she didn’t “deserve it” by her physical appearance; or that Human Rights were the “dung of vagabonds”; or praising by name an execrable torturer of the military dictatorship in the plenary of the House of Representatives. Bolsonaro’s repertoire of extremist and unacceptable stances is inexhaustible. All that did not stop the newspaper Estado de São Paulo from publishing an editorial in 2018 stating that deciding between Bolsonaro and Fernando Haddad – for president in 2018 – was a “difficult choice.” Even though Haddad is a university professor and politician with an absolutely moderate and unblemished career.

In covering the coup and violence of January 8, 2023,  journalists frequently used the expression “radical Bolsonarists”. This expression is greatly inaccuracy because it admits an impossibility: a “moderate Bolsonarist.” Bolsonarism is a fascist movement, a far-right movement, with international links to white supremacists, neo-Nazis, antivax, terraplanists, religious fundamentalists, traditionalists, etc. There is no Bolsonarism that is not radical right. The redundancy in the expression “radical Bolsonarism” is another chapter in normalizing Bolsonarism. A way of not dismissing the strong rejection of any leftist personality or party. Most mainstream newspapers lined up in this.

This normalization process made Bolsonaro the wrong person at the wrong time. He boosted the other Brazilian authoritarian phenomenon with a long history: the military coup. Before leaving the Army to become a councilman in Rio de Janeiro in 1988, Bolsonaro was arrested for indiscipline, and accused in a military trial of being a lazy and undisciplined officer. Years later, the barracks would re-open their doors to Bolsonaro, now the spokesman of a power project in continuity with the pretensions of the 1964 dictatorship.

The central pillar of the Bolsonaro government is the military. It is a military government, in ideas, in how it manages public affairs – always fostering militarism in all sectors of society. There were the frequent military visits –  to decorate, to attend graduations, or to participate in olive green banquets. The “civic-military” schools were the public policies exposing the use of the public machine to construct a militarized society. The military sectors typically believed that Brazil’s fault is the “absence of discipline”. Their arming public policy (in a country where homicides are among the highest in the world) is a tragedy. Almost daily, countless news reports, recount weapons (now legally acquired and unmonitored by the military) ending up in the hands of organized crime.

Let us x-ray public administration  to understand Bolsonaro’s military government. More than 8000 military personnel have occupied civilian positions in the administration. Not even in the military regime were so many military personnel in high positions in democratic public institutions. It is not a coincidence, that General Villas Bôas, former commander of the Army, appears in this movement of military participation. He is the ideologue of the military participating in spheres outside the barracks.

Already in 2018, in the government of President Michel Temer, during the election campaign, then-commander of the Army Villas Bôas brought the coup spirit to the forefront as it had not happened for decades. General Eduardo Villas Bôas, stated on his Twitter profile on Tuesday, April 3, 2018, the eve of the habeas corpus trial filed by former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva at the Supreme Court (STF), that: “I assure the Nation that the Brazilian Army believes it shares the yearning of all good citizens to repudiate impunity and respect the Constitution, social peace, and democracy, and remains attentive to its institutional missions.” This post on social networks generated an extensive social commotion. But his statement was not without the endorsement of the army high commands, showing that it as a army worldview, not a post by an individual. The next day, former president Lula had his petition for habeas corpus rejected, leaving him on the verge of ineligibility for that year’s presidential elections (which would happen a couple of months later). Let’s remember, Lula was in first place in the polls in the presidential race, and by a wide margin.

This absurd intrusion by the high commands of the Armed Forces in national political life was repeated in the last elections of 2022. The Armed Forces questioned the TSE (Superior Electoral Court) 88 times about “supposed vulnerabilities” in the Brazilian electoral process. The Armed Forces then declared non-existent vulnerabilities in the electoral process and in the electronic ballot boxes themselves. There was no evidence to prove it. The army became agents to destabilize the electoral process, and validated the fake news disseminated daily by then-President Bolsonaro.

In the election year 2022, the Armed Forces, through the Ministry of Defense, headed by General Paulo Sergio Nogueira,  enabled the Bolsonarists to continue  attacks and disseminate disinformation. But  no proofs were shown against the electronic ballot boxes. The minister of the Supreme Federal Court (STF), Luiz Roberto Barroso, stated  that the military is trying to “discredit” the Brazilian electoral process and that attacks on the system are “totally unfounded”. In short, all attacks against the electoral system in the Bolsonaro government have/had some participation of active or reserve members of the Armed Forces. It is important to highlight: in the previous 25 years of redemocratization, the Armed Forces never questioned the electoral system and the electronic ballot boxes, which demonstrated success in performance.

On November 9, after the election, a Ministry of Defense report on the electoral process was released without pointing to any concrete fraud or proof of irregularity. But the disappointeded Bolsonarists continued the coup discourse. A day later, November 10, General Paulo Sergio Nogueira tried to explain himself and said that the report “did not exclude the possibility of the existence of fraud or inconsistency in the electronic ballot boxes and the electoral process of 2022”.

On November 11, a note issued jointly by the Army, Navy, and Air Force commanders – without the signature of the Ministry of Defense – was addressed to the Judiciary. An excerpt from the Armed Forces’ states: “Any restrictions to rights, on the part of public agents, are condemnable, as well as any excesses committed in demonstrations that may restrict individual and collective rights or put public safety at risk; as well as any actions, by individuals or public or private entities, that feed disharmony in society.”

In 2022, as in 2018, the active participation of military sectors in the presidenticy was as extensive as it was problematic. But it did not end with the defeat of Bolsonaro. In a constant destabilization, demonstrations funded by pro-Bolsonaro companies, and supported by the Armed Forces, continued during the post-election period. On December 12, the date of President-elect Lula’s graduation, trial balloons launched demonstrations of bus and car breakings and arsons. In these attacks, nobody was held accountable and the police and military remained in the best box watching the fireworks of the supposedly disgruntled demonstrators. The rest, we witnessed as it unfolded. January 8 is not over yet. The military were never held accountable for the massive human rights violations in the last dictatorship. Possibly the same will happen regarding January 8th. 

The coup attack of January 8, 2023 exhibited, two fronts that will continue to challenge democracy in Brazil: the political radicalization of society by the fascist far right and the military coup to sabotage the democratic forces. Bolsonaro has not yet acknowledged his defeat at the polls, has left the country, and intends to continue articulating with the international far right. The generals played an active role in the fascist invasion and depredation of the presidential palaces. They need to bend to the legal rigours of the democratic order. That is why the Brazilian social movements continue to chant the cry: No amnesty!

André Rodrigues is a political scientist, professor of political thought at the Fluminense Federal University and coordinator of the Laboratory for Studies on Politics and Violence – LEPOV
Andrés Del Río is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science for the Bachelor’s Degree in Public Policy at the Fluminense Federal University IEAR-UFF; Coordinator of the Center for Studies on State, Institutions and Public Policy, NEEIPP at UFF; Coordinator of the research group: Judicial Power in Latin America of the Latin American Association of Political Science (ALACIP). He is a collaborating member of the Commission on Human Rights and Legal Assistance of the Brazilian Bar Association – CDHAJ/OAB-RJ