Coups d´état are characteristic of times when political opposition groups extrapolate the legality and sometimes make use of violence to overthrow a legitimate government. Coup d´état is therefore attempting to political forces to illegally overthrow a constitutionally legitimate government. Coup d´état has this name because it is characterized by an institutional break, contrary to normal law and order and subjecting state control to people who had not been legally designated either by election, inheritance or other transition. In the most common type of coups d´état, the rebellious forces surround or hijack the seat of government, often driving, holding or even executing members of the deposed government. Taking into account the concept described above of coup d´état, it can be said that the impeachment of Rousseff cannot be characterized as such. Even the ministers and former ministers of STF- Supreme Court did not consider the impeachment as a coup d´état as they seek to characterize Dilma Rousseff, PT (Workers Party) and its allies.

1. 1
IT WILL NOT HAVE COUP D'ÉTAT IN BRAZIL
Fernando Alcoforado *
Coups d´état are characteristic of times when political opposition groups extrapolate the
legality and sometimes make use of violence to overthrow a legitimate government.
Coup d´état is therefore attempting to political forces to illegally overthrow a
constitutionally legitimate government. Coup d´état has this name because it is
characterized by an institutional break, contrary to normal law and order and subjecting
state control to people who had not been legally designated either by election,
inheritance or other transition. In the most common type of coups d´état, the rebellious
forces surround or hijack the seat of government, often driving, holding or even
executing members of the deposed government. Taking into account the concept
described above of coup d´état, it can be said that the impeachment of Rousseff cannot
be characterized as such. Even the ministers and former ministers of STF- Supreme
Court did not consider the impeachment as a coup d´état as they seek to characterize
Dilma Rousseff, PT (Workers Party) and its allies.
The phrase "it will not have coup d'état" used by PT and its allies have no basis because
the impeachment of Rousseff is provided by the Constitution and their rite was drawn
by the Supreme Court. This expression is more of a " cliché" in order to mobilize PT
and the political forces that support it to respond, including the use of violence against
the impeachment of Rousseff that all indicate should happen because every day which
passes the federal government is increasingly isolated either in Congress or in the whole
country. This keyword has also the purpose to disqualify anyone who is in favor of
impeachment that is strikethrough commonly as putschist and disrespecting the
Judiciary itself with the argument she was putting next to the putschist to depose Dilma
Rousseff. The terms " it will not have coup d'état " and "they will not pass" have also
aimed to mobilize, irresponsibly, PT and its allies to resist post-impeachment to prevent
loss of power exercised corruptly since 2002 when former -president Lula launched the
ill-fated PT Era in the history of Brazil.
The use of violence against the impeachment of Dilma Rousseff has already been
announced by Lula when he made reference to the use of the "army" of the MST's
(Movement of Landless Workers) Stedile, the president of the CUT (Central Single of
Workers) Wagner Freitas who spoke on take up arms to defend the government and by
Stedile of the MST who threatened to quit the country if Dilma Rousseff be impeached.
The very Dilma Rousseff and some of his ministers have held meetings / rallies in the
Planalto Palace urging his followers to resist against what they call as a coup d´état
through impeachment. We are on the eve of a political state of anarchy configured by a
civil disobedience situation that could result in belligerence with the permanence of
Dilma Rousseff in the Presidency Republic or Vice-President Michel Temer to replace
her in case of impeachment. Both the permanence of Dilma Rousseff as the rise of
Michel Temer to power will bring dissatisfaction for broad sectors of the population
because both share responsibility for the catastrophe political, economic and social that
bankrupted the economic and political-institutional systems of Brazil.
Both scenarios may intensify the conflict between supporters and opponents of the
current government that could lead the country to civil war that would be triggered by
one of the political forces in confrontation excluded from power. If wars generate death,
destruction and socioeconomic deprivation, they tend to be highly unpopular, which
discourages democratic governments to follow this course of action. Democratic

2. 2
governments are more sensitive to the interests and preferences of the population.
People typically desire peace not only by the absence of deaths, but the opportunity to
live normal lives. Peace is not only common, it is desirable. The most unjust peace is
preferable to the fairest war. This phrase is attributed to Erasmus of Rotterdam (1467-
1536), one of the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance. Peace can be defined as the
absence of war. War is the state of war that everyone brings storms to the body and the
spirit. Peace is exactly the opposite of war. Peace is something nice. But all of us in life
we seek peace, whenever it arises is accepted as something very desirable and normal,
unlike the war that is always sporadic, except for the tormented spirits, but we are here
talking about morbid, unhealthy state. Therefore, peace is balance. It is the desired
steady state.
Faced with the impossibility of Dilma Rousseff and Michel Temer ensure the
governability of the country and build social peace in Brazil is absolutely necessary to
have the resignation of both, respectively the Presidency and Vice-Presidency of the
Republic to make way for the establishment of a provisional government of
reconciliation national made by reputable public figures accepted by all political forces
in confrontation that would have the mandate to convene a new constituent assembly to
reorganize the national life, seek the country's consensus in resolving the economic and
social crisis, prevent the escalation of violence in Brazil and hold new general elections
in the country. This would be the way to avoid a fratricidal struggle or a civil war in
Brazil. If this policy solution is not adopted there will only be one outcome to the
institutional impasse in which he lives the Brazilian nation that is the intervention of the
armed forces for the maintenance of constitutional order to prevent the emergence of a
civil war in Brazil. Brazil is living therefore decisive moments in its history.
It can be said that in Brazil, there was never, in fact, a solution like the one just we are
proposing, that is, the resignation of President and Vice-President of the Republic to
prevent civil war and build social peace in Brazil. The conciliation that seeks to achieve
at the present time differs from those that have occurred throughout the history of the
country because it aims to build social peace to halt, the one hand, the collapse of the
national economic system and on the other hand, to halt the political and institutional
collapse of Brazil. It should be noted that in the history of Brazil, at times of political
and economic crisis always prevailed "agreements by high" between the ruling classes
and the holders of political power that allowed maintain the "status quo" as happened,
for example, with the coup d´état that led to the end of the Monarchy and the Republic
Proclamation in 1889, the coup d´état resulted in the so-called Revolution of 1930 and
also with the end of military dictatorship in 1985. On these occasions, the "agreement
by high "happened because the Brazilian people did not exercise their role with the
ability to influence decisions about the direction of the country. Unlike the events of the
past, at present, there has been the participation of social movements that are
protagonists of the political process of the Country.
It should be noted that the conciliation that we stand not mean to forgive the corrupt and
those who are part of the scoria of Brazilian politics. The conciliation that we propose
should not be an "agreement by high" as in the past, but an agreement with broad
participation of Brazilian society to build social peace and to halt on the one hand, the
collapse of the national economic system and, on the other hand, to halt the political and
institutional collapse of Brazil.
* Fernando Alcoforado, member of the Bahia Academy of Education, engineer and doctor of Territorial
Planning and Regional Development from the University of Barcelona, a university professor and

3. 3
consultant in strategic planning, business planning, regional planning and planning of energy systems, is
the author of Globalização (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1997), De Collor a FHC- O Brasil e a Nova
(Des)ordem Mundial (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 1998), Um Projeto para o Brasil (Editora Nobel, São
Paulo, 2000), Os condicionantes do desenvolvimento do Estado da Bahia (Tese de doutorado.
Universidade de Barcelona, http://www.tesisenred.net/handle/10803/1944, 2003), Globalização e
Desenvolvimento (Editora Nobel, São Paulo, 2006), Bahia- Desenvolvimento do Século XVI ao Século XX
e Objetivos Estratégicos na Era Contemporânea (EGBA, Salvador, 2008), The Necessary Conditions of
the Economic and Social Development-The Case of the State of Bahia (VDM Verlag Dr. Muller
Aktiengesellschaft & Co. KG, Saarbrücken, Germany, 2010), Aquecimento Global e Catástrofe
Planetária (P&A Gráfica e Editora, Salvador, 2010), Amazônia Sustentável- Para o progresso do Brasil e
combate ao aquecimento global (Viena- Editora e Gráfica, Santa Cruz do Rio Pardo, São Paulo, 2011),
Os Fatores Condicionantes do Desenvolvimento Econômico e Social (Editora CRV, Curitiba, 2012) and
Energia no Mundo e no Brasil- Energia e Mudança Climática Catastrófica no Século XXI (Editora CRV,
Curitiba, 2015).