Military and Authoritarianism in Latin America

In Collier’s piece, he presents an argument that attempts to explain the rise of authoritarian and military regimes in specific areas of Latin America. Collier presents analysis from Guillermo O’Donnell in which three elements (regime qualities, nature of the politically dominant group, and certain public policies) are crucial to understanding different Latin American political systems. Guillermo O’Donnell takes a multidimensional approach to describing political systems in Latin America.

Oligarchic arrangements revolve around political power in the hands of the elites and the lack of political power in other classes. Can it be determined if the societal emergence of the middle class weakened the oligarchic regimes the most? Or were the economic changes that led to the birth of the middle class more responsible for the fall of oligarchic regimes? For oligarchic regimes to exist, other classes either need to be absent or virtually powerless politically and economically. Whether through repressive measures or systemic controls, oligarchies were closed systems politically and economically. Thus, the birth of the middle class was a powerful threat to the existing oligarchic order. Populism inspired the working and middle classes to reach a level of political power that was deemed too costly to the elites. Relying on industrialization in order to weaken the middle and working classes reflects a sharp turn away from populism. It seems obtuse to expect no backlash in forcibly moving from populism to non-populism. Reaching a certain threshold of power for the first time, the middle and working classes were bound to react negatively when said power was removed. This inspires instability due to friction between the classes, which affects national affairs as well as transnational partnerships.

Bureaucratic-authoritarianism seems like a nostalgia-inspired effort to return to the elite-centered society of Cycle One (1900-1939). The tendency to exert military force in such areas as economic conflicts emphasizes the elite’s use of repressive tactics to control the lower classes as well as the economic and political structure of the state. With limited participation and no competition outside of the elite, bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes resemble a reemergence of the oligarchies from Cycle One (1900-1939). In contrast, oligarchies maintained export and agriculture-based economies while bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes promoted industrialization. More specifically, the need for continuous economic growth through industrialization resulted in policies that hurt the middle and working classes. These policies were taken in order to secure foreign investment and to advance industrialization. Were the elites/technocrats cognizant of the damage that orthodox economic policies would have on the middle and working classes? In seeking foreign investment and economic help, the technocrats knowingly made sacrifices at the expense of the middle and working classes. Furthermore, the promotion of industrialization weakened the power for non-elites which served as a positive byproduct for the elites.

In Chapter Three of Democracy in Latin America, Smith emphasizes the political and societal importance of the military in Latin America. Latin American military forces looked abroad for expertise in military affairs, which resembles a similar economic strategy presented in Collier’s piece. The sacredness of the military in representing and protecting la patria or “the fatherland” permeated through civil societies in Latin America. Did ex-military officers fare better in democratic campaigns in comparison to civilian candidates? Or is that a moot point since instances of military officers seizing power through coups most likely outnumbered instances of ex-military officers running democratic campaigns? These questions should be explored going forward in order to better understand the importance of the military as the means for social respect and political mobility. Often acting as an independent entity, the military was both a source of law and order as well as a source of political instability. The varied goals, actions, and motivating factors of the military require in-depth analysis of the historical functions of different Latin American militaries.

The numerous coups and coup attempts over the years emphasized the extreme amount of power and responsibility entrusted to the military. When leaders failed civilians, and change was necessary, the precedent of domestic military intervention transcended other alternatives. When such a force is applied liberally in domestic politics, democracy has little room to flourish. While some military forces were mobilizing forces for the popular sector, other military forces were central to bureaucratic-authoritarian regimes that were vehemently opposed by the popular sector.

Military forces were crucial in anticommunist efforts during the Cold War in Latin America. In protecting la patria against the spread of communism, Latin American military forces utilized any and all means to their disposal. Cuba heightened the geopolitical stakes for Latin America during the Cold War. Did the prerequisites for electoral democracy require action by the military? This may have been true during Cycle One (1900-1939), however the effects of the Cold War and the historic precedent of military intervention sparked a rampant campaign of repression, violence, fear, etc. Were the nationalistic ideals invested in the military bound to be detrimental at some point? The campaign against communism in Latin America was heavily influenced by the international community as well. The United States’ multiple interventions in Latin America further supported the violence and repression by showing preference for military regimes over electoral democracies.

As for larger implications, can a Latin American democracy be truly democratic without civilian control of the military? In attempting to control the military, democracies faced a complex and difficult test. Controlling the military included admitting to the human rights abuses committed by the military as well as attempting to prosecute military members for perpetrating those human rights abuses. Is it easier to achieve control of the military in smaller countries rather than larger countries?  The size of the country does not matter, as emphasized by Guatemala’s difficulties in controlling the military. With Argentina’s struggle to achieve justice for human rights abuses, the military revolted in a campaign against the democratic state. Furthermore, the military’s disregard for the civilian legal system in Argentina reflects a semi-democratic notions. If the military and its members are exempt from being punished by the government, is the government undemocratic? Or is the military outside of the democratic state? By not submitting to the democratic government, the military acted against the democratic state in Argentina. In cases like Chile and Argentina, the complex and difficult goal of controlling the military is marked by smaller reform efforts, not sweeping change. By identifying patterns of civilian-military relations, Smith clearly emphasized both the diversity of the patterns and the implications of said patterns in beginning to understand current relations.