Military-Authoritarianism in South America: Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and Argentina
| Date | 01 March 1984 |
| Published date | 01 March 1984 |
| DOI | 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1984.tb00162.x |
| Author | George Philip |
| Subject Matter | Article |
Political
Studies
(1984),
XXXII,
1-20
Military-Aut horitarianism in South
America: Brazil, Chile, Uruguay and
Argentina
GEORGE
PHILIP
London
School
of
Economics
and
Political Science
In recent years, a number of South American countries have been subjected to
durable military governments. This phenomenon was not at all foreseen twenty
years ago.
Four
different approaches have been adopted
to
try to explain this
resurgence of authoritarian rule. These have related it
to
economic change, seen it as
a reaction against uncontrolled social mobilization, regarded it as a corporatist
throwback to earlier Latin American forms of rule, and related it to changes in
South American military institutions after the Cuban Revolution. All four
hypotheses will be examined and found wanting (although all have partial validity).
Linz’s more general paradigm of authoritarian rule is then examined, broadly
accepted but found to be excessively static. Finally
a
more
complex ‘two track’
hypothesis is put forward relating to the political evolution of military-authoritarian
regimes.
During the later 1960s, it became almost a truism in the political science
literature that long-term political order in South America was elusive and
would become more
so
as economic development proceeded.’ This was
because political institutions were weak, political society was increasingly
mass-based and legitimacy was largely absent. Government had, therefore, to
be carried out by a series of expedients. These arguments were on the whole
well-put and there was much to recommend them. However, no sooner had the
consensus been established than a number of regimes came to power deter-
mined to break decisively with this pattern of politics. The Brazilian military,
after taking power in 1964, did not return it to civilians as many observers
initially expected; instead, it evolved in the direction of long-term authori-
tarian rule. This pattern was then followed, with variations, by the Argentine
military (in 1966 and again in 1976), the Peruvian military (in 1968), and the
Chilean and Uruguayan military (both in 1973).
These regimes were not identical but-apart from the Velasco regime in
Peru which was quite different2-they all had important features in common.
1
See C.
W.
Anderson,
Politics and Economic Change in Latin America
(Princeton, Van
Nostrand,
1967)
and
S.
P.
Huntington,
Political Order in Changing Societies
(New
Haven, Yale
University Press,
1968).
2
On Peru, see
A.
Stepan,
The State and Society; Peru
in
Comparative Perspective
(Princeton,
Princeton University
Press,
1978)
and
G.
Philip,
The Rise and Fall
of
the Peruvian Military
Radicals
1968-76
(London, Athlone Press,
1978).
0032-3217/84/01/O001-20/$03.00
0
1984
Political Studies
2
Military-Authoritarianism
in
South
America: Brazil,
Chile,
Uruguay and Argentina
They were repressive, economically orthodox in varying degrees (in all cases
more
so
than their civilian predecessors), durable and very ambitious in their
claims about political and economic restructuring. It may be that this military-
authoritarian wave is now in decline-the Argentine and Uruguayan military
regimes have announced definite intentions of returning power to civilians, the
Brazilian regime is becoming less purely authoritarian and even Pinochet’s
regime in Chile is showing signs of weakening in the face of economic
difficulty. Scholarly attention is beginning to shift towards the question of
how and when authoritarian governments fall, and it may be that, in this case
at least, life will eventually follow art.3
Yet it would be wrong to allow these regimes to depart without
a
backward
glance. Just as the political instability
of
the early 1960s (and in some cases
early 1970s), despite its transience, revealed a great deal about the nature
of
politics in Latin America, so the military authoritarian regimes which followed
will surely have important implications for subsequent politics. Some
of
these
will be considered here following discussion of the military regimes in Brazil
(post-1964)’ Chile (post-1973), Uruguay (post-1973) and Argentina (1966-73
and 1976-83).
Four Hypotheses on Military-Authoritarian Rule
One of the most important general treatments
of
authoritarian government is
provided by Juan Linz’ study of
Franquista
Spain.4 Before considering this in
detail, however, it will be helpful to discuss some of the other literature on
military-authoritarianism
in Latin America. It will not be possible to consider
other treatments in any great detail, but an attempt will be made to elucidate
and examine the basic assumptions informing some common approaches.
Four different lines of argument will be discussed.
The first approach (hypothesis A) regards economic change and economic
structure as fundamental. The argument usually put is that an earlier Latin
American strategy of economic development, based on import-substituting
industrialization
(ISI)
with state support, had become ‘exhausted’ and that a
shift towards reliance on world markets had become ne~essary.~ An ‘outward-
oriented’ policy, however, could not attract significant domestic political
support because it required a high degree
of
social inequality (unlike the earlier
3
G. Philip, ‘The Military Institution Revisited’,
Journal
of
Latin American Studies,
12,
No.
2
(November
1980), 421-36;
H.
Handelman and T. Sanders,
Military Government and the
Movement Toward Democracy in South America
(Bloomington, Indiana University Press,
1981)
and R.
H.
Dix, ‘The Breakdown of Authoritarian Regimes’,
Western Political Quarterly,
35,
No.
4
(December
1982).
4
J.
Linz,
‘An
Authoritarian Regime; Spain’ in
E.
Allardt and
S.
Rokkan,
Mass Politics;
Studies in Political Sociology
(New York, Committee
on
Political Sociology,
1970),
pp.
25 1-83.
5
The question of whether
IS1
becomes exhausted and, if so, with what economic consequences
is itself difficult. See Maria Conceicao de Tavares, ‘The Growth and Decline
of
Import Substitu-
tion
in
Brazil’,
Economic Bulletin
for
Latin America,
9
(March
1964),
pp.
1-65;
A. Hirschman,
‘The Political Economy
of
Import-Substituting Industrialisation in Latin America’,
Quarferly
Journal
of
Economics,
82,
No.
1
(February
1968),
pp.
2-32,
and
W.
Baer, ‘Import Substitution
and Industrialisation in Latin America; Experiences and Interpretations’,
Latin American
Research Review,
7,
No.
1
(Spring
1972),
pp.
95-122.
An influential ‘economic determinist’ view
is put forward by R. Mauro Marini,
Dialectica de la Dependencia
(Mexico City, Era,
1973).
To continue reading
Request your trial