As relações civis-militares na Argentina num período pós-transição

Este texto analisa três períodos distintos na vida política da Argentina: o período de 1930 a 1976 em que sucessivos golpes de estado militares derrubaram o poder político; o período entre 1976 e 1983 durante o qual surgiu a última ditadura militar, conhecida como o Proceso e, finalmente, o período que abrange a transição para a democracia, de 1983 até ao governo do Presidente Menen. Durante o período do Proceso as dificuldades económicas do país, a violação dos direitos humanos e a guerra das Malvinas quebraram a unidade das forças armadas e aceleraram a transição para a democracia. Após o Proceso a influência militar na política interna do país foi enfraquecendo gradualmente tendo-se instaurado, em consequência de reformas jurídicas e institucionais, uma situação de equilíbrio civil-militar no período pós-transição

Military Involvement in COVID-19 Responses: Comparing Asia and Latin America

Across the world, governments mobilised the military to support COVID-19 relief efforts. Especially in Asia and Latin America, where the military was extensively involved, this raised concerns about the negative implications for democratic quality and human rights. However, only in a few of the two regions' countries did the military hijack or supplant civilian politics during the pandemic. In both regions, militaries performed numerous tasks during the pandemic, staffing the health bureaucracy, producing medical equipment, providing healthcare services, delivering logistics, and enforcing public-security measures. The extensive reliance on the military's organisational resources, however, did not necessarily lead to the political ascendance of the armed forces or the erosion of democratic quality. Military participation in COVID-19 relief efforts undermined democracy and human rights only where the armed forces had been a pivotal actor in the context of institutionally weak democracies or militarised dictatorships already prior to 2020

Attention Deficits: Why Politicians and Scholars Ignore Defense Policy in Latin America

Prepared for delivery at the 2006 Meeting of the Latin American Studies Association, San Juan, Puerto Rico March 15-18, 2006.In an era of widespread democracy in Latin America, attention to civil-military relations and defense policy has become a low priority for both politicians and scholars of the region. Interest has faded with the retreat of militarism and the military in government. Unlike the public debate that national economic, education, or health care policies provoke in most Latin American countries, civil and political society are relatively silent on the issues of national defense. Why do civilian politicians show little interest in investing resources and expertise in defense institutions? Why has there been a parallel drop in scholarly attention as democracies consolidate in the region

Democratization, social crisis and the impact of military domestic roles in Latin America

Civil-military relations theorists have long warned against the participation of armed forces in domestic missions in democratic societies. They argue that such domestic roles bolster the military politically and eventually lead to the overthrow of democratic governments. Yet for two decades now, democratic governments have enlisted the help of their militaries domestically without risk to the regime. Civilian leaders often provide the military with internal roles to compensate/or the inability of the state to provide the public and private goods demanded by citizens, particularly in times of internal economic or social crisis. Even in the midst of crisis. democratic governments can withstand military involvement in a range of domestic projects, from food distribution to policing to provision of health services. This article argues that military political intervention that accompanies participation in internal missions is only one possible outcome of moments of severe conflict induced by crisis, and will occur only when weak democracies with low levels of civilian control are victims of such crises. We examine this relationship in a comparison of two Latin American cases: Argentina and Venezuela

Latin America's Growing Security Gap

The requisites of democracy and security are sometimes in conflict. Upholding the rule of law and safeguarding fundamental rights and freedoms are the hallmarks of a consolidated twenty-first-century democracy. Yet the need to guard the nation against violent domestic or transnational threats has often been used as a rationale for states to skirt the law and limit the very rights that they claim to be protecting. Striking the right balance between freedom and safety is hard, and Latin America’s history of authoritarian rule and domestic political violence makes that region especially sensitive to the difficulty of the challenge. The problem is once again on the agenda as Latin American countries, after having recently experienced a wave of democratization, now find themselves awash in record levels of crime and disorder. The region is one of the world’s most violent, with a murder rate of 32.6 per 100,000 people in 2008—a rate that has more than doubled since 2003 and is three times the global average