Blog Post 2- Authoritarianism by Mitch Albyn

This coming week’s reading of Chapter 3: “The Military: Heading for the Exits?” discusses the rise and eventual fall of militaristic governments in Latin America. In the military’s assertion of power over civilian control, there are often serious violations of basic human rights. Despite the obvious atrocities committed by these juntas, they often escape the justice any rational person would expect. So why/how have many of these military leaders been able to avoid any real punishment for their crimes?

As seen in the cases of Argentina, Chile, and Guatemala discussed in the chapter, the answer is complex. Political corruption played a large role in allowing junta leaders to evade justice. Junta leaders on trial were often able to remove prosecuting officials from office and replace them with harmless friends. Also, Smith and Sells mention “the complex quality of bargaining between civilian and military authorities.” To me, bargaining seems too placid of a descriptive word because often civilians were in grave fear of disclosing any incriminating information of military members on trial. Also, the lower ranking military officials and civilians often chose to keep their mouth shut in order to avoid incriminating themselves.

I believe a large part of the failure to bring these junta leaders to justice is a matter of perspective. While we view the murdering of innocent people as an unforgivable crime, others may view it as an evil necessary for the ultimate success of their cause. The reading discusses the Argentinian soldiers’ viewpoint during the human rights trials in the mid-1980’s. They were confused and infuriated at the thought that they were being incriminated and punished by a thankless nation for their sacrifice in the war. We can’t forget also that these military coups often had strong support from civilians, who sympathized with these military leaders. Ríos Montt of Guatemala, who was found guilty of several disturbing crimes directed towards the Mayan population, was able to retain enough of a following to continuously avoid any real punishment.

Another important question regarding human rights trials is are they best for the success of democracy? According to Kathryn Sikkink and Carrie Booth Walling in their paper “The Impact of Human Rights Trials in Latin America”, many scholars concluded in the 1990’s that human rights trials are “politically untenable and likely to undermine new democracies” (paper can be found here). A supporting argument for the notion that human rights trials are bad for democracy is that they lengthen the conflict, leading to further death and violence. This is evident in the numerous bombings and murders that ensued during the Argentinian human rights trials. Also, there is the belief that international justice is impossible. Rather than a transitional democracy wasting important time and resources on a former leader’s wrongs, focus should be on improving the new democracy. Another argument is that future political leaders that declare the need for a human rights trial may incite a military coup, ultimately undermining their long-term goals for their constituents.

Sikkink and Walling go on to disprove this theory that human rights trials hinders democracy later in their paper. Because it’s been over 20 years since many of these trials occurred, Sikkink and Walling were able to look at the long-term success of these young Latin American democracies. The researchers examined the human rights conditions of 14 Latin American countries that had two or more years of human rights trials using the Political Terror Scale (PTS). They found that 11 of the 14 countries improved their human rights situation after trials. Furthermore, there was a higher average improvement in human rights in countries that had more human rights trials compared to countries with fewer trials. While human rights trials seem to have done a poor job at bringing justice to abusive junta leaders, there is factual support for their long-term success in regards to democracy. Furthermore, human right trials must still be pursued because citizens must believe in the morals of their leaders.