INTRODUCTION: A PERSISTENT INEQUALITY

Brazil is highly unequal, and the country’s history keeps this state of inequality virtually untouched. Economic crises, political instabili­ties and regime changes have left this landscape practically unaffected.

There seems to be a correlation between regime change, political crises and the level of inequality in Brazil: whenever there is some movement towards decreasing - or merely potentially decreasing - inequality, the backlash tends to be quite severe. Though the empirical data lead to more nuanced interpretations - it is not simply that dictatorial periods were more unequal and democratic ones were more equal - ^[136] they show that Brazil’s dictatorships in the twentieth century, notably Getulio Vargas’s Estado Novo (1937-45)^[137] and the civilian-military regime (1964-85)^[138], were inequality boosters by benefitting historical oligar­chical and business sectors, despite the previous period of lower inequality.^[139] This pattern remains valid in more recent developments. The political backlash that led to the rise of President Bolsonaro could, for example, be interpreted according to such a rationale, as an illiberal backlash against the years the Worker’s Party (PT) remained in power,^[140] even though President Dilma Rousseff’s (PT) last years in power were also marked by �the overlapping of the political and economic crisis’.^[141] Corruption scandals and the economic downturn certainly played a role,^[142] but we cannot overlook that redistributive policies and a more progressive agenda would be met with fierce resistance and would help shape the melting pot of conservatism and authoritarianism that led to Bolsonaro’s victory.

Inequality and authoritarianism are thus closely intertwined in Brazilian history: the moments when Brazil endured the greatest levels of equality were also those that paradoxically paved the way for a democratic backsliding. Just to focus on those two dictatorial periods of the twentieth century, both Estado Novo (1937-45) and the civilian-military dictatorship (1964-85) followed moments of greater equality in the country, also as an outcome of the �mild levelling’ Brazil experienced after the Great Depression in the early 1930s and World War II.^[143] Both authoritarian periods reversed this trajectory and provided the country with its most authoritarian Constitutions (1937 and 1967). On the other hand, the 1988 Constitution is, by far, the most democratic ever in Brazilian history and it has proved rather resilient at its core despite various attempts to reverse some of its social rights and mechanisms of social inclusion.^[144] It is no acci­dent that regressive movements against that constitutional social core^[145] and the strategy of deconstitutionalisation of core constitutional commitments^[146] have intensified in the last few years. The pattern, even if less intense now, remains, but it is at least a positive sign that the 1988 Constitution is still firmly in force and that Brazilian democracy has provided some tools to protect itself and its Constitution from breakdown.

This chapter examines the rule of law as it has been experienced in a country with such high inequality. Its impact on the institutional framework is significant and, as will be further examined in the following chapter, is intimately connected to an authoritarian mindset that is still pervasive. This chapter also explores specific kinds of inequality, such as gender, race and that affecting Indigenous people. Brazil scores comparatively low in gender and racial equality, even for regional standards, which is certainly an issue for the rule of law. Also relevant is how the country deals with its longstanding regional inequalities and how the commitment to the rule of law depends on your location. This chapter ends by critically assessing some empirical data on the quality and functioning of Brazilian democracy and rule of law, and contextualising them with the conclusions of the previous sections.

II.