Same Old, Same Old?

In his article, “Continuity or change?”, author W. Hunter explores whether the military still maintains great influence in modern Latin American politics. Hunter argues against the traditional ‘modes of transition’ argument, which insists that the military still plays a vital role in Latin American politics due to their presence on federal decision-making bodies, a position negotiated during regime transitions. Instead, Hunter supports the theory that military influence has eroded through the ‘electoral-dynamic argument.’ In essence, “unrestrained electoral competition” has diminished military influence as representatives feel pressure to “embrace popular causes and distribute patronage” in order to accumulate votes (454). This leads to a breakdown of military restriction on popular participation, like the ability to hold strikes, and allows citizens to demand change, which further erodes military influence. Hunter provides evidence to support his argument with the cases of Brazil, Chile, and Argentina wherein military influence has continued to decline after years under civilian rule.

O’Donnell’s transition argument unwittingly supports Hunter’s in that he argues that transitions can only be considered complete once actors have accepted and obeyed a set of ‘rules’ that define how an individuals can gain political power, create conflict with the opposition, utilize procedures, and exclude someone from political participation based on a clear set of criteria (65). Essentially, both these authors highlight how military influence is undermined in post-authoritarian governments when politicians must first be elected, and continue to win election cycles, based on support from an engaged populace and then operate under a clearly defined set of formal and informal rules on how power can be utilized. Since the general populace does not want to revert back to an authoritarian era in which their rights were restricted, and because the new government is elected on popular votes, politicians should theoretically continue to move away from military-backed initiatives that are opposed by the electorate.

However, neither author accounts for the cultural and historical implications of the military being revered as the founders of many Latin American countries, which has ‘legitimized’ past military interventions, as explored in previous readings. An argument could be put forth that military influence has declined because democratically-elected leaders continued to deliver on the promises that got them elected in the first place, and therefore, there was no need for continued intervention because the populace was generally accepting of the political situation. This calls into questions whether future crisis, like the political upheaval in Brazil or economic crisis in Argentina, could incite either the military to unilaterally rise up or cause the populace to call-upon the military to ‘leave the barracks.’ This was seen in Peru in the 1980s, wherein economic crisis and violence caused by the Shining Path weakened civilian politicians and allowed a return-to-power by the military. While military influence has once again declined in Peru, it still calls into question whether civilian governments can maintain their influence in the midst of crisis without returning power to the armed forces.