- In contrast to Mexico, where the Indians comprise 12.4% of the population (and combined with "half Indians", they make up the majority of the population), in Brazil, the Indian population is estimated at 0.2% of the total population. Brazil instead grapples with its policies towards its black slave population from Africa, a population group that was particularly central to public life in 1870 and 1880, as will be described presently. Beginning, however, with the situation at the end of the 20th century, the ongoing economic crisis impeded the government from playing an aggressive role in society and from providing basic services to its citizens. The first presidential elections in Brazil were conducted in 1985, but the election reform that had been instituted by the military faction in power on the eve of the elections, mandated consensus between the parliament and president, denying the president any effective authority without the cooperation of the legislature. The elected president received only 5% of the votes in Parliament, and refused to include the Parliament in the government. He also committed various crimes that ultimately led to his impeachment and to his replacement by his vice president, Itamar Franco. In 1995, President Cardozo was elected. Until Cardozo's election, the situation in Brazil remained difficult, with 38% of the population in favor of restoring military regime. Many people were killed in the conflicts, and the government continued to refrain from meting out justice to criminals, except in isolated cases, and this only when a well-connected person was murdered. The police would summarily execute any violator of the law - though this did not increase general compliance with the law. Government officials regularly violated the law, without fear of impunity. Inflation grew. Yet memories of life under the military regime and lack of military support for a revolution prevented the outbreak of a revolution. Returning to the 19th century, there is a parallel between Brazil, Mexico, and the US, regarding the evolution of nationalism in each of these countries. Mexican nationalism evolved only following a bitter internal struggle, as a result of which the lower Indian class was freed, just as the US nation fully developed only following a hard bloody Civil War, which freed American slaves. Brazilian nationalism, similarly, began to take shape, only after its slaves were freed, and a bitter civil war was fought in the 1880's, 20 years after the US fought its own civil war and freed its own slaves. At the start of the process of the liberation of the slaves, the Brazilian legislature served as a forum by which the elites could safeguard their own interests, included in which was the preservation of slavery. Certain compromises were achieved through this forum, which were accepted by all members of the elite class, including slave owners - such as the liberation of all slaves by the age of 60, and the liberation of second generation slaves at the age of 21 in exchange for financial compensation by the government. Slave trade and importation were legal and legislated by law. Rural and urban regions in Brazil developed different attitudes towards slavery as a result of disparate economic needs, just as the Northern and Southern states in America had done. Differences between the Brazilian Civil War and the American Civil War reflect fundamental differences between Catholic Latin American culture, a culture that is built on direct personal relationships that are often hierarchic and not always democratic, and Anglican Protestant North American culture, which is predicated on select democratic institutionalized relations and a system in which problems are solved according to formal established principles rather than intimate personal connections. This distinction was also responsible for the American Civil War being the bloodiest war in American history, while the liberation of the slaves in Brazil was essentially bloodless, and the product of a consensus created through spirited public debate alongside political debate in the newspapers. Towards the end of the 1860's in Brazil, members of the movement for the Liberation of the Slaves began forming associations to promote their goals, and the Brazilian parliament began debating the issue. In 1871, a law, meant to begin the process of freeing the slaves, was enacted, and 6,500 slaves were freed over the course of three years and their owners compensated by state coffers. This rate was too slow to satisfy the opponents of slavery, and so efforts were made to transfer the process to local levels of government, and in 1883 private foundations were established to finance the liberation of slaves. Even prior to this, in 1880, organizations were formed to help badly abused slaves escape from their owners. In 1882, a movement began that harshly protested the importation of slaves. In 1884, as a result of public pressure, a place named C'eara was declared slave free - all present slaves there would be liberated, and slave importation to there was prohibited. The opponents of slavers advertised in the newspapers one day, that they would be concentrating on two streets in the capital city, and over the next few days, they went from house to house in those blocks, and found 12 families who still owned slaves. They persuaded these families and all the rest of the residents of these blocks to sign a statement pledging to desist from slave labor. The government stepped up enforcement of the clauses of the law that prohibited the mistreatment of slaves, clauses that had been virtually ignored until then. A law was passed that prohibited beating a slave with a whip. Opponents of slavery protested the law that granted slaves their freedom only at the age of 60, claiming that property rights must yield to the right of liberty. In 1887, slaves began fleeing from their owners, by the masses. In a number of states in Brazil, laws were passed by which slaves were freed without compensation to the owners. The media and public opinion encouraged free expression regarding the issue. The debate promptly reached the Parliament, where discussions focused on questions of morality, rather than economic interests. People met face to face and persuaded others - including slave owners - of the immorality of slavery, until slavery expired completely and was unconditionally terminated in a formal and legal manner. This overwhelming victory for public opinion was exceptional in Brazil. The reality of the arrangement of internal forces in Brazil could not lead to any decisive changes in Brazilian society beyond the liberation of the slaves and the establishment of a national community in Brazil that included the lower classes, and the African slaves. After the slaves were freed, the State's interests (embodied in the army) joined forces with proponents of capitalism, and supporters of positivism - the Brazilian equivalent to Western and North American liberalism. These three groups formed a cohesive force that opposed public debate, democracy, and liberalism. This force continues to wield influence in Brazil today, even after a completely democratic system of government was instituted. Yet this does not diminish the greatness of the Spanish legacy of patronage, of personal relationships and debate - which enabled the Brazilians to achieve the bloodless social revolution that shaped their nationalism. This historic moment represents the power of personal contact, a power that can even promote positions that are not consistent with self-interest, and which stands in sharp contrast to liberal-democratic North American hypocrisy that emphasizes values over personal relationships.