Download LatAm.4.1.Military - High Point University

The Military as a Political Actor
Thought exercise:
What is the appropriate political role of the
military in a democratic society?
Are there situations where you would support
military intervention into the domestic
politics of this country?
Augusto Pinochet, 1975 nicely captures the typical Latin
American military answer to these questions:
“Since liberty derives from man’s inherent spirituality and is
therefore justified it put to use for his moral and intellectual
development, it is unacceptable if employed for the weakening
and destruction of those very same values” (245). Thus, when
politics becomes so corrupt or chaotic that a country’s core values
are threatened, military intervention is morally required. (How
different than the US Declaration of Independence?)
“The fatherland with, its traditions and historical-cultural identity,
cannot be the patrimony of any given generation, for it also
belong to those who built it in the past, and those who have a
right to its future inheritance. Nor can any generation so consider
itself the sole possessor of its nationality as to feel authorized to
destroy it” (245). In short, if the present generation betrays past
and future generations, military intervention is justified.”
What are the key characteristics of Latin
America’s military establishment?
• Why is the military central to the foundational myth of most Latin American
countries (who founded America?), or at least the beginning of modern
politics?
• Why is the military seen as a valuable political actor by society? What does
Brian Loveman mean when he writes about “the politics of antipolitics”?
• How are the constitutional roles are different than in the US (2nd amend,
Const. role)?
• What role does the military have in economic development? Is that a
legitimate part of the mission of the military?
• How are they resourced? pretty well funded (independently) and armed for
the external threats they actually face (5% GDP); Generally speaking, quite
well trained
• In Lat Am, the military often voices political and economic preferences,
seeing them as security issues. Does our military do that?
• There is considerable inter-branch rivalry bc of what it at stake
Why is the military more involved in
politics in Latin America?
• How does the size of the middle-class & the structure of the economy affect
militaries?
• How does the structure of advancement within the military affect political
ambition? Why does it matter if politics is part of the equation?
• How does the content of military education affect political ambition? Who
teaches military officers and how have they been trained (School of
Americas)?
• How do societies vary in their expectations for military intervention?
• How does political stability (and political system design, populism) impact
intervention? If you think our system doesn’t work…
• How does the structure of the economy impact the military (state-led
development)
• How have politics in the US impacted the role of the military in LA politics?
To what extent have we encouraged practices abroad that we would never
accept here? Is this still the case?
How successful has the military been as
a political actor in Lat Am?
• How brutal? (Guatemala, Argentina, Chile)
• How successful economically? (Chile, Brazil,
Argentina)
• What kind of economic strategy? (Chile,
Brazil, Peru)
• When/how do they leave power? (Argentina,
Brazil, Chile)
• Have things changed as the region has
trended democratic since the late 1980s?