Week 3 The Military
In chapter 3 of Smith’s Democracy in Latin America, we can see the varied involvement of the military in Latin American politics over the years. Interactions between the public and the military have changed their relationship, separating them further and further from one other as time went on. Smith discusses the civilian support of the military early on at the turn of the century and their dedication to La Patria, viewing the military as saviors of the nation. Later on, we see social tensions building between the two sectors during extensive trials resulting from human rights violations committed by the military. I’m curious as to how the relationship between the two sectors has impacted democracy, and if it is at all responsible for the declining amounts of control the military has in political matters.
Argentina, Chile, and Guatemala served as examples in this chapter of the changing relationship between the military and public through their human rights issues. In Argentina, Alfonsín issued Nunca Mas to begin efforts to console the public of the disappeared persons. This was answered with bombing and drawn out trials against commanders, which attracted even more public interest. His successor did not show significant improvement in the matter, as there were massive demonstrations protesting the pardons of many junta leaders. Similar to Argentina, Rettig released a testimony of the abuses that went on during the “dirty war” in Chile, which was later followed by a series of trials. Lastly, Guatemala and Chile confronted issues while pursing charges against figure heads such as Ríos Montt. This added to the public unrest and resentment towards the military.
I’m curious if these lower and middle class sectors that included human rights advocates were considered part of the influence that fazed out the amount of military control. Could the voices of these people have become a more prominent factor in political considerations, and have added a push in the direction of governments establishing authority over democracy? Similarly, did this period filled with social tensions in some way help overall political activation in the popular sector, or did it discourage it because of the frequent threats of violence that were posed at those attempting to bring justice to the situation.
Another consideration brought to mind was if military involvement will necessarily follow the same pattern as the exit of authoritarian regimes in Latin America, and cease to reoccur in large amounts. It must be brought into account that there have been no major threats to the state since the decline of military power. Apart from any threats in the future, what kind of political or social change might influence the reoccurrence of military control? Will the popularity of the government among civilians stay consistent as well? Perhaps the advances in technology and communications that the armed forces possess will continue to refine their contributions to the government. Additionally, does a reduction of military control necessarily mean that a nation will move towards more inclusive policies.
Military control of any government will lead to problems and authoritarianism to occur. This is because troops and individuals in the military are tempted to follow commanders and leaders that have lead and motivated them through tumultuous times without any regard. For example, in the US Military enlisted men and women swear to obey the orders of all officers and individuals appointed over them, that are lawful of course. This can be problematic if the military has a great deal of power over the government, because a president may not be able to influence or change a soldiers mind if there commander convinces them one way. But that being said, I think that a reduction of military control does mean a nation that will move toward a more inclusive policy because it allows for more involvement in government rather than just the military.
The human rights abuses committed by some military forces were sometimes aimed at the middle and working classes. I wonder if the middle and working classes supported the establishment of democracy as well as the democratic state’s goal of lessening the power associated with the military? As a formerly repressive force, I’m sure it was dangerous to support the democratic state in the trials against the military. While the popular sector was not directly responsible for the trials against the military, I’m sure their interests were intertwined in the process. Much of the military intervention in Latin America has been domestic, historically. I am interested to see what Latin American military mobilization looks like in the future as well. I think that the presence of inclusive policies depends on whether the military has allied with technocrats and elites in the past. It may be more difficult to implement inclusionary policies in a country where exclusionary policies have been dominant in the past. Also, I think the popularity of the civilian government depends partially on the lack of domestic issues (economic crises, violence, labor issues, etc.) You posed a lot of really interesting questions at the end of your post.