Democracy in Brazil has been evolving over its almost 500-year history. Following its discovery in 1500, Brazil's political status during its colonial period slowly improved over three centuries. During that time, under Lisbon's tutelage, Brazil made peaceful transitions from principality to viceroyalty to kingdom to empire. In 1822, Dom Pedro I declared Brazil's independence and became emperor thus creating a constitutional monarchy that was self-governing while preserving royal authority. The monarchy lasted 67 years during which Dom Pedro I abdicated and was succeeded by his son, Dom Pedro II. In 1889 the young emperor was dethroned by the army and the new republic came under the guardianship of the military under the twin ideals of ordem e progresso.

In the years that followed, the task of balancing order and progress brought the military into politics as the final arbiter of the nation's will, but what characterized the will of the armed forces was a determination to turn Brazil into a great power in the modern world. Because of this zeal for progress, the army retained its independence from any one class or political interest. In 1891 a democratic constitution based on that of the U.S. was approved. But although monarchic legitimacy had been destroyed and a constitutional republic created, the legitimacy of the republic order proved difficult to uphold. The traditional politics of an oligarchic and unequal society persisted and, as such, Brazilian politics was driven by regional elites. True democracy failed to take root. In the early 19th century, political power derived from the sugar-growing northeast. By the end of the century, coffee had surpassed sugar as the main economic driver and so political power shifted to São Paulo. In economic terms, São Paulo contributed more to government than it received which further reinforced its influence over national politics.

Although varying degrees of social and economic progress were achieved in the early days of the new republic, Brazilians remained deprived of numerous liberties and civil rights. Elections were mere formalities that gave blessing to regional oligarchies and voting was restricted to literate adult males. Within states, politics remained a contest between various hierarchies headed by political coronéis. As such, federal government was determined by the politics of a few rather than a test of public opinion. Opposition to the republic did not further the cause of democracy, but rather favored a return to monarchy.

The 1920s witnessed the emergence of several political parties opposed to the oligarchic establishment and the political power wielded by the São Paulo-Minas Gerais axis that formed the café com leite alliance. Regional dissatisfaction, intellectual ferment and a malaise within the armed forces all combined to undermine the dominant oligarchic status quo. The Great Depression broke the back of the old republic in large part because São Paulo's dominance plummeted as coffee prices collapsed. With São Paulo weakened, the cattle barons of Minas Gerais formed a new alliance with their counterparts in Rio Grande do Sul and together chose Getúlio Vargas as its presidential candidate. But when Vargas lost to a São Paulo supported candidate, the new alliance refused to accept the result and rebellions ensued. The resulting military intervention installed Vargas as president, but effectively put an end to the republic that was created in 1889. Once again, the road to democracy took an uncertain turn.

The Estado Novo over which Vargas presided marked the end of the hegemony of the São Paulo coffee interests and the redirection of the economy from export-led to state-directed import-substitution industrialization. But, politically, populism, not democracy, emerged in Brazil during the corporatist dictatorship of Vargas. His policies stressed extreme nationalism and social improvement. The latter translated into labor reforms and the mobilization of labor unions as allies of the regime. This situation lasted until 1945 and was followed by a period of democracy that lasted until the military coup of 1964. But the significant industrialization that took place during the Vargas years did not, for the most part, coincide with a democratic political system.

The years following Vargas' death up until 1964 witnessed further industrialization, but at the high cost of incurring unprecedented rates of inflation. But the task of calming inflation and other economic imbalances without provoking retaliation from the nationalists and sparking industrial unrest proved too much for then President João Goulart. As his rhetoric increasingly took on revolutionary tones, the army ousted the president and took control of government for the next twenty years. Although the military regarded constitutional democracy as the norm, it justified political intervention as a measure of upholding ordem e progresso.

The arrival of the Brazilian "economic miracle" in the early 1970s justified the need for continued military control of the state and the continued suspension of democratic rights. But Brazil's armed forces had fallen victim to the juggernaut of development.

While in 1964 they had intervened in politics to restore the finances of a nation, by 1982 they presided over the worst financial mess Brazil had ever seen. Paradoxically, the military's historic pursuit of ordem e progresso had led to a situation where economic progress had become the enemy of social order. Rather than endure the social consequences of ridding the nation of its economic woes, Brazil's generals decided to seek a legitimate form of government and commenced a process of "redemocratization."

Tancredo Neves was elected the first civilian president in 21 years in 1985, but he died before taking office and José Sarney became the new president. Although Sarney enjoyed initial popular support, the sheer weight of the nation's economic problems overwhelmed his administration. Sarney and the entire political establishment were discredited for their inability to address Brazil's economic crisis. With democracy slowly penetrating Brazilian politics, Ulysses Guimarães delivered a final coup de grâce to military rule when he presided over a convention in 1987 that wrote a new Constitution to replace an earlier one written by the military. In 1989, Brazilians rejected the leading political party candidates to elect Fernando Collor de Mello in the first direct election in 40 years. His election was charactereized by a wave of optimism and the belief that Brazil had finally embraced democracy. And although Collor was subsequently impeached amid allegations of corruption, the smooth succession to Itamar Franco demonstrated that democracy had firmly taken root. Brazil's democratic, civilian era is now nearly a decade old. Political parties have access to free television time to express their views while major networks sponsor political debates to help Brazilians assess the candidates. Political polls are conducted to gauge the effectiveness of campaigns and the electorate has a genuine sense of freedom and democratic political process.

In less than a decade, Brazil has come a long way as a country and a people. The end of inflation has been a major achievement and has given people the luxury of financial planning that was previously unattainable. The local market is now playing by the same rules as the worldwide market; international competition has replaced protectionism. Moreover, Brazil's recent economic successes are serving to deepen the roots of democracy further.

This year, the United States commemorated 222 years of independence. For more than two centuries the U.S. has stood as an example of democracy to all other nations.

Brazil's democracy may be young and fledging, but it is demonstrating to the non-democratic nations that it can indeed be attained and with enormously successful results. The egalitarian and democratic ideals that originally led to the fall of monarchy in Brazil in 1889 are today more alive than ever. Happy Independence Day, Brazil!