Obstacle To Democracy: Military - Essay Example

?Obstacle To Democracy: Military Obstacle To Democracy: Military Introduction During the period of 1988, the military of Argentina stood against the democracy of the country which was still in its early stages (ROEHRIG, 2002, p. 58). Similar events were witnessed in Guatemala during the same period. Later in the same year, the military section of Brazil blackmailed the country into continuing the presidency of Jose Sarney for one more year. During the era of 1988, the citizens of Chile were under constant struggle to take the powers from their military (ROEHRIG, 2002, p. 75). In Sandinistas it has been witnessed that the peace of the nation was not threatened by the political parties but it was threatened by their military forces. Another Latin country, Panama is dependent on the fate of bad general for their democracy. The entire region that constitutes of Latin America is fighting against military rule and governments that are being operated in accordance to military regulations. Democracy in various areas have not been able to reach the advanced level because in these nations, officer groups are ready to give up their positions in government offices but are not ready to give up those functions that have civilian power. Those democracies that are still in their early stages are continuously being threatened by the military section of the country and these sections dictate how government needs to operate. One of the major problems faced by society is that the society is controlled by those who have more physical power such as the police force, the intelligence agencies and the defence. Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North represented the fact that countries that have strong democracies should always be alert about the connection between the public and the military (FRIED, 1997). The defence forces operate with great power and secrecy and this kind of behaviour is a very huge threat to the policy makers located in democratic settings. The same problem even exists in developing countries and the degree of this problem in developing countries is much higher. This is because the military section of the developing countries even are responsible for carrying out functions of the police and the military officials in these countries have occupied major positions in different security aspects. Body The Story of Latin America and Role of the US The Latin American side of America started moving from dictatorship rule to democratic rule during 1970s; this transition has witnessed huge number of bargaining episodes taking place between the civilians and the military of Latin America (CHASTEEN, 2001). Several bargaining episodes have failed over the year and the end result of these failures has resulted in economical and political failures as well as defeat at the hands of their own military (FITCH, 1998). The main motive behind the failures of these bargaining episodes has always been the protection of the interest of the defence system. The degree of control that civilians have gained during these bargaining episodes has have never been constant and has been dependant on the strength of the forces of military. The decision of how much power is to be vested in the civil side of the nation has been decided on the basis of concerns for national security. Various countries that have an interest in Latin America has helped in developing the military section of the region. These countries includes: US, Spain, France and other European countries, but the most influential of all these countries has been the United States. When questions are raised against US intervention in the military section of Latin America, these questions have been answered while keeping in view the strategic importance of intervention for Washington. During the year 1987, the military section of US that is responsible for safeguarding the southern side of US was provided with only 4% of assistance from security agencies through the world (DENT, 1995). The southern section only received less than 1% support from the Defence Department and less than 1% support from the overall budget of the defence forces (DENT, 1995). America has always had interest in the Latin regions because of various reasons including: security of the homeland, continuous control over important raw materials, investment purposes and to increase the strength of the values of democracy. The role played by the US in strengthen institutions within the democracy has experienced heavy criticism from various parts of the world including Latin America. US has made an enormous contribution towards the creation of the armed forces of the Latin region of America, still they have failed in making a major differences to the relationship between the civilians and the military in the southern region of Rio Grande. The programs that have been in place to solve the situation in the southern regions of Rio Grande have been held responsible for spreading anticommunism and have given rise to military control over the civilians. In previous years, US tried to change the face of the military forces of the Latin Americans by decreasing its intervention in the politics of the country and increasing its actions in safeguarding the nation. This assistance has fired back as this assistance has helped the military generals in becoming strong figures of the political system and this helped has even increase the strength of the military officials in the political system. The aid and assistance provided by the US had made the military section of Latin America stronger in the region of technology and has weakened the strength of political groups. The efforts made by the US to secure democracy have failed and instead of securing democracy, these efforts have strengthened the military section of the Latin Americans. During 1960s, when the US assisted in creating a network of paramilitary, the end results have not been as desired. The end result of this assistance was weaker civilian control and stronger military control and this led to mass murder of several peasants (MAZZEI, 2009). From Dictatorship to Democracy During 1961, Paraguay was one of the Latin American regions that were governed by the rule of dictatorship and by the era of 1971, all regions in the southern section of Latin America were governed by military rule (LYNCH, 1984). This era was recognized as the era of decrease in democratic rule throughout the world. During the ending periods of the administration of Carter, democracy started regaining strength. The Carter administration pressurized the military forces of various Latin American regions to leave the political system of Latin America. Later the same process was witnessed by some of the other Latin American regions, this time the change took place under the presidency of Regan. During this era, the only countries that were under military regime included Nicaragua and Chile and Paraguay although there was pressure from the international community and well as local civilians. Several nations of Latin America were no longer in the control of the dictatorship, but the activities similar to dictatorship activities still continued during 1989, for example: in Panama, although there was a civilian leader, but he was nothing more than a puppet who was controlled by General Manuel Antonio Noriega (BILLIAS, 2009). During the same period, fresh democratic countries such as Brazil and Uruguay faced similar situations. In these countries, several officers who had served the army for throughout their lives took control of offices in the government. The civilian officers who were in the government even tried changing the military attitudes held by these officials. Several officials of the Latin regions even believed that the military officials were very important for the safeguard of the nation against foreign forces. The problem with these officials was that they believed that the internal threat from internal enemies was more threatening than the threat of external enemies. Military and Civil Conflict A major reason due to which military forces have more power than civilians is that the military officials of the South and the Central regions of America were given too many privileges. Families of the military officials mostly marry with another family, these officials are provided with separate and expensive housing, their children attend schools especially designed for families of military officials, and even their dead are buried in non civilian areas and are provided with special benefits. The military officials of the Latin region of America were even involved in anti-social activities such as drugs and weaponry trafficking. A government may be making economic and social progress but if it fails to control the military section of the country, the government is said to be weak. Democracy does not only involve democratic way of operating institutions and society. If a particular society has to make civilians superior, the society has to control the activities of the military forces. Another reason due to which military officials have always had more power is that they have more knowledge and information in the region of security; thus, civilians even need to obtain enough knowledge in order to break the monopoly of the military. Although civilians have the oversight powers but their oversight powers in the case of democracy has not been effective. Very few individuals from the public are part of the military affairs and civilian contact with the military officials is quite risky. Military officials complain that they are being used by the prominent figures of the society to solve issues faced by the society and once they solve these problems, they are held responsible for any negative activity conducted by them. They believe that if they allow the civilians to rule, they will lose the prestige and respect they have earned. There have been various incidents when the military officials and the civilians have joined hands together to fight against corrupt leaders from the civilian ranks. When a country shifts from dictatorship to democratic rule, the officials of the military are unaware about their legal roles. Military and Politics During the period of 1950s the US realized the significance of the military of Latin America in curbing uprisings that took place within the country (WRIGHT, 1991). The involvement of the military forces in internal peace making process were quite prominent during the era of the Kennedy presidency, later the policymakers even took help from military when the country experienced a threat of revolution from the citizens. Increase in training provided by the US to the Latin American military forces took place because of the belief that through this training, Latin American military will accept the supremacy of the civilians. Those who were in the favour of training military officials of Latin America believed that through these training sessions, the Latin American military forces will accept the basic rights of the citizens. The assistance provided by the US was later ended by the Congress because the assistance fired back and rather benefiting the civilians, the assistance became life threatening for the Latin American citizens. During the presidency of the Kennedy, military officials of the Latin American region were provided with training regarding financial and other policy making areas and administering the citizens. The Kennedy presidential administration believed that this training was necessary to bring in changes to the society and to prevent revolutionary events that took place in Cuba from taking place. According to a study conducted by Luigi Einaudi during the period of 1971, it was figured out that when military officials gain training in controlling security issues that take place within the country, military official’s participation in politics increases rather than decreases (PERLMUTTER, 1981). Due to the trainings provided to the military officials of Latin Americans with the idea of increasing their professionalism, these military officials became more politically involved and instead of returning back to their barracks after maintain peace within the country, these military officials started changing the face of the nations economical and political arena. These changes were experienced by all the countries of Latin America including, Brazil, Chile, Argentina and others. During this period, it was even observed that these trainings helped military officials learn new ways of interrogating the citizens and these training even promoted the propaganda of black and gray. During 1950 military officers from the region of Argentina obtained training from US, they were provided instructions at different US institutes (GAREAU, 2004). During the month of September of 1975, over 600 military officials of Argentina gained training in the Army schools of the US, this training was provided for countering any uprisings that take place within the nation (GAREAU, 2004). During 1976, the military officials of Latin America faced various charges for treating the citizens in the worst manner possible (LYNCH, 1984). Although various moves were made to stop the brutal treatment of the civilians at the hands of the Latin American military forces, but these forces continued to operate brutally even during 1978 (LYNCH, 1984). The atrocious behaviour of these forces continued until the Carter period, during Carter period, the aid and assistance and training programs for Latin American military forces were stopped and the finances for these programs were decreased. As soon as the Carter regime came to an end and Regan gained presidency, all the efforts made to stop the brutal treatment of the Latin American armed forces experienced a setback. Are the Trainers Trained? Those trainers of the US who were selected to train the Latin American forces were not even properly trained before they were sent to Latin American countries. They usually received one week training and this training focused on the situation of civilian uprisings, condition of the local environment and countering terrorist activities. These trainers were provided no training on the subject related to the policy of the US for Latin America. The policies developed by the US regarding the Latin American forces should have been clearly instructed to the trainers (advisers). Previously the policies created by the US were announced and the trainers were informed about these policies. These policies were created while giving importance to civilian supremacy over the Latin American military. The encouragement that was provided by the US to the military forces of the Latin America for intervening in civilian activities made the Latin American forces more popular than local political groups. For example: when building infrastructure activities took place, the military officials of the Latin America were given the credit for these developments. On the other hand the political parties and their leaders are not able to proceed with their developmental plans because they do not have enough aid from the US. The political parties were not appreciated at all for their measures of development, rather they were held responsible for any mishaps or when development does not take place. The US was even providing ample amount of assistance and financial backing to the Latin American military forces to counter the issue of drugs, this assistance should have been scrutinized by the US as this assistance can even back fire as the training programs have back fired. Conclusion The Latin American military forces had been in power for several years and were much stronger than the civilian political parties. The strength gained by the military was due to the assistance and the financial aid and training provided by the US to the military. The political parties and the civilians had failed to govern the country in a democratic way because the military was much powerful than them. References ROEHRIG, T. (2002). The prosecution of former military leaders in newly democratic nations: the cases of Argentina, Greece, and South Korea. Jefferson, N.C., McFarland & Co. FRIED, A. (1997). Muffled echoes: Oliver North and the politics of public opinion. New York, Columbia University Press. CHASTEEN, J. C. (2001). Born in blood and fire: a concise history of Latin America. New York, Norton. FITCH, J. S. (1998). The armed forces and democracy in Latin America. Baltimore, Johns Hopkins University Press. DENT, D. W. (1995). U.S.-Latin American policymaking: a reference handbook. Westport, Conn, Greenwood Press. MAZZEI, J. (2009). Death squads or self-defense forces? how paramilitary groups emerge and challenge democracy in Latin America. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press. http://public.eblib.com/EBLPublic/PublicView.do?ptiID=475194. INTERNATIONAL CONGRESS OF AMERICANISTS, & LYNCH, J. (1984). Past and present in the Americas a compendium of recent studies. Manchester, UK, Manchester University Press on behalf of the 44th Congress. http://books.google.com/books?id=jTVqAAAAMAAJ. BILLIAS, G. A. (2009). American constitutionalism heard round the world, 1776-1989: a global perspective. New York, New York University Press. WRIGHT, T. C. (1991). Latin America in the era of the Cuban Revolution. New York, Praeger. PERLMUTTER, A. (1981). Political roles and military rulers. London, F. Cass. GAREAU, F. H. (2004). State terrorism and the United States from counterinsurgency to the war on terrorism. Atlanta, Ga, Clarity Press. Read More