Civilian Vs Military Rule Latin America
Civilian vs. Military rule in Latin America
In any study regarding the relationship between military and civilian rule In Latin America, it is important to have an understanding of the extensive role that the military has played in the region. The almost inseparable link between the civilian political system and military authority is key to gaining an insight into the challenges of attempting to consolidate rising democratic trends in a post-transition environment, from military to civilian rule. A case in point, in illustration of the influence of the military in Latin America, is the deliberate measures taken in order to ensure that the peronist movement in Argentina was kept from gaining political influence in the aftermath of Peron’s exile. In 1962 as well as 1966, those measures rose to include military take-over in order to ‘correct’ the results of popular elections (Skidmore & Smith, 2005, pp. 92-94). The transition from military to civilian rule in Latin America is a precarious one, and so the challenge faced by any new political system is one of striking the right balance between military and civilian actors when trying to implement reforms and achieve a consolidation of democracy. Gradual change is key. Immediate and widespread reform carries the risk of military coup due to the inherent perception, in Latin America, of the position of the military as having a guardian role. On the other hand, too little reform and the political system may never fully develop the democratic institutions needed to step out from under the shadow of the military and gain civilian control of the armed forces. Any hope of achieving this must rest on the ability to successfully reduce the political influence of the military in such a way that, during the process of reform, a coup can be averted by addressing the concerns of the military while maintaining, as a principle goal, the establishing of a legal framework to which the military is subject (Fitch, 1998, pp. 134-135).
In any study regarding the relationship between military and civilian rule In Latin America, it is important to have an understanding of the extensive role that the military has played in the region. The almost inseparable link between the civilian political system and military authority is key to gaining an insight into the challenges of attempting to consolidate rising democratic trends in a post-transition environment, from military to civilian rule. A case in point, in illustration of the influence of the military in Latin America, is the deliberate measures taken in order to ensure that the peronist movement in Argentina was kept from gaining political influence in the aftermath of Peron’s exile. In 1962 as well as 1966, those measures rose to include military take-over in order to ‘correct’ the results of popular elections (Skidmore & Smith, 2005, pp. 92-94). The transition from military to civilian rule in Latin America is a precarious one, and so the challenge faced by any new political system is one of striking the right balance between military and civilian actors when trying to implement reforms and achieve a consolidation of democracy. Gradual change is key. Immediate and widespread reform carries the risk of military coup due to the inherent perception, in Latin America, of the position of the military as having a guardian role. On the other hand, too little reform and the political system may never fully develop the democratic institutions needed to step out from under the shadow of the military and gain civilian control of the armed forces. Any hope of achieving this must rest on the ability to successfully reduce the political influence of the military in such a way that, during the process of reform, a coup can be averted by addressing the concerns of the military while maintaining, as a principle goal, the establishing of a legal framework to which the military is subject (Fitch, 1998, pp. 134-135).