-
Center for Latin American Studies at the University of Miami is
collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to
Journal of Inter-American Studies.
http://www.jstor.org
The Latin American Military: Predatory Reactionaries or
Modernizing Patriots? Author(s): Martin C. Needler Source: Journal
of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr., 1969), pp.
237-244Published by: Center for Latin American Studies at the
University of MiamiStable URL:
http://www.jstor.org/stable/165369Accessed: 13-05-2015 16:37
UTC
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the
Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://www.jstor.org/page/ info/about/policies/terms.jsp
JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars,
researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information
technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new
forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please
contact [email protected].
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.orghttp://www.jstor.org/action/showPublisher?publisherCode=miamihttp://www.jstor.org/stable/165369http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsphttp://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
Martin C. Needler Division of Inter-American Affairs The
University of New Mexico
THE LATIN AMERICAN MILITARY:
PREDATORY REACTIONARIES OR
MODERNIZING patriots?
Until
quite recently, the study of Latin American politics existed
in a relatively primitive stage. A crude empiricism, occupied
with the straightforward description of events or formal
institu?
tions, was relieved only by occasional global generalization of
an impres? sionistic character about the informal characteristics
of politics. However, substantial advances have begun to be made in
the last few years in the
direction of more systematic elaboration of theory to account
for the
distinctive characteristics of politics in the area, and we have
begun to see
the confrontation with each other and with the data themselves
of rival
theoretical explanations. Needless to say, this mutual
confrontation of
rival interpretations is a healthy sign for the deepening of our
under?
standing of Latin American politics. One of the areas in which
this process is furthest advanced is the
study of the role of the military. Here one school of thought,
whose lead?
ing exponent is Edwin Lieuwen, has taken a point of view frankly
hostile
to the intervention of the military in the processes of
politics, regarding such intervention as characteristic of a
relatively low degree of political
development, which it helps in turn to perpetuate. Professor
Lieuwen
writes of military intervention in politics as "predatory," and
stresses the
self-interested motives for such intervention.1
1 Lieuwen's views are to be found in his Arms and Politics in
Latin America (New York: Praeger, 1961); Generals vs. Presidents:
Neo-Militarism in Latin America (New York: Praeger, 1964);
"Militarism and Politics in Latin America," in John J. Johnson,
ed., The Role of the Military in Underdeveloped Countries
237
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
238 Journal of Inter-American Studies
This point of view, which he calls "traditionalist," has been
criticized
by Lyle McAlister as not recognizing that military seizures of
power oc?
cur in response to the dynamics of the total political
situation; thus they are caused, in this view which McAlister calls
"revisionist," not by the
motives of the military themselves, but rather by political
events occurring outside the military institution. For this reason,
McAlister even eschews
the term "intervention," since he regards the military as an
integral part of the functioning political process, not as outside
it.2 A position similar
to McAlister's has usually been taken by John J. Johnson,
although John?
son's views contain mutually contradictory elements and are
sometimes
difficult to categorize.3 And far from regarding military
intervention as
reinforcing and perpetuating political backwardness, the
McAlister-
Johnson school of thought stresses the potential of the military
as a mod?
ernizing force.
Although the basic difference of opinion is over a question of
scholar?
ly interpretation, the dispute carries personal and ideological
overtones, with the "revisionist" school regarding the
"traditionalists" as naive and
moralistic, and the "traditionalists" viewing the "revisionists"
as apolo?
gists for the military without commitment to constitutional
processes. The issue takes on added significance because of its
central relevance
to United States policy in the area. The tendency of United
States policy in recent years, a tendency of which Lieuwen has been
especially critical, has been to regard Latin American armies as
partners in the Alliance for
Progress and to attempt to improve their domestic political
"image" by
fostering civic action programs.4
Despite the intensity of feeling that has accompanied expression
of
the two viewpoints, however, it is in the present writer's view
unwarranted
to regard these two approaches as altogether mutually exclusive.
In
(Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1962); and "The
Military: a Force for Con? tinuity or Change," in John TePaske
& Sydney N. Fisher, ed., Explosive Forces in Latin America
(Columbus: Ohio State University Press, 1964).
2 For McAlister's views, see "Civil-Military Relations in Latin
America," Journal of Inter-American Studies, July, 1961; "The
Military," in John J. Johnson, ed., Continuity and Change in Latin
America (Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1964); "Changing
Concepts of the Role of the Military in Latin America," The An?
nals, July, 1965; and "Recent Research and Writings on the Role of
the Military in Latin America," Latin American Research Review,
vol. II, no. 1, Fall, 1966.
3 See his The Military and Society in Latin America (Stanford:
Stanford Uni? versity Press, 1964); and "The Military as a
Politically Competing Group in a Transitional Society," in his The
Role of the Military in Underdeveloped Countries, cited above.
4 These programs are discussed in Willard F. Barber and C. Neale
Ronning, Internal Security and Military Power: Counterinsurgency
and Civic Action in Latin America (Columbus: Ohio State University
Press, 1966).
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
The Latin American Military 239
the present article the writer will instead argue that the
perceptions of the
causality of military intervention held by representatives of
the two schools
of thought are actually complementary aspects of a single truth:
that even
though military intervention in politics occurs in "patriotic"
response to the requirements of the functioning of political
system, it nevertheless
does reflect military self-interest. On the related question of
the putative
modernizing role of the military, however, the evidence suggests
that
military intervention contributes to the retardation of the
processes of
political development rather than to their promotion.
II
The examination of military intervention in politics, as
expressed at
its maximum in the military coup d'etat, appears to show that
the coup develops out of the complementary interaction between
pressures ex? ternal to the military and the predispositions of the
military themselves.
Complementarity in this sense is frequently met with in studies
of causality in any field; the onset of many diseases, for example,
is most reasonably explained as resulting from both an
environmental factor, such as infec?
tion, and a constitutional weakness or predisposition to the
disease in the
organism. In the case of the military coup, external pressures
on the military
to intervene are generally present, which come to a head in
propaganda in favor of intervention. Many examples of such
campaigns preceding recent coups d'etat can be cited.5
This incitement of the military to intervene can follow one of
sev? eral strategies?although in any given instance all are usually
employed in combination. The primary technique is to work through
the persua? sion of individual military officers of importance
through direct face-to- face contact. The second is to mount what
John P. Harrison has called, referring to the Argentine situation,
"a consistent and conscious effort by the mass media." 6 The third
technique, which supplements the other
two, is to manipulate the political situation itself, by means
of fomenting strikes, manifestations, simulated terrorist attacks,
and so on, to create
5 See Juan Bosch, The Unfinished Experiment, Democracy in the
Dominican Republic (New York: Praeger, 1965), p. xi; M. C. Needier,
Anatomy of a Coup d'Etat: Ecuador, 1963 (Washington: Institute for
the Comparative Studies of Politi? cal Systems, 1964), p. 15; John
J. Johnson, ed., The Role of the Military in Under? developed
Countries, cited above, p. 124; A Report to the American Academic
Com? munity on the Present Argentine University Situation, special
publication of the Latin American Studies Association, Austin,
1967, p. 17.
6 A Report to the American Academic Community on the Present
Argentine University Situation, cited above, p. 17.
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
240 Journal of Inter-American Studies
the impression of a situation in which there is no solution
other than a
military assumption of power. At the same time, this external
stimulus to a military coup must be
matched by an internal readiness to stage the coup on the part
of the
military for the desired result to be achieved. The fact that
the military
may be reluctant to intervene, no matter what the provocation
provided
by the external political situation, is suggested by the fact
that in some
Latin American countries such external situations have developed
with?
out leading to military coups. This is true not only of
countries with an
established tradition of civilian control of the military, such
as Chile and
Uruguay, but also of countries such as Venezuela, which does
have a tra?
dition of military intervention in politics, but in which the
military has
nevertheless not intervened in recent years, despite
considerable provo? cation. Clearly, the internal predisposition is
necessary, over and above
the external stimulus.
In Generals vs. Presidents1 Lieuwen argued that the major
factor
predisposing the military to intervene in the present era was
their self-
interest in the sense of concern for the preservation of the
military institu?
tion, especially in the light of attempts, successful in Cuba
but aborted
elsewhere, to reduce or eliminate entirely the traditional army,
replacing it with a popular militia. In research conducted
independently of Lieu-
wen's, but about the same time, the present writer found this to
be a critical
factor in the Ecuadorean coup d'etat of 1963, 8 and other
observers
have independently discovered the same phenomenon elsewhere.9
More?
over, the much-vaunted programs for the training of Latin
American
officers by the United States seem to have had as one of their
major results the stimulation of anti-Communist ideology in the
Latin Ameri?
can military, along with the implicit message that United States
ap?
proval of any action taken in the name of anti-communism will
be
forthcoming. But what the Latin American officer understands by
"com?
munism," or at least as its most salient feature, is precisely
the replace? ment of the traditional army by a popular militia. As
general Alfredo
Ovando Candia, the Bolivian Commander-in-Chief, put it in a
news?
paper interview: He did not think that Paz Estenssoro (the
President he
7 New York: Praeger, 1964. 8 Anatomy of a Coup d'Etat, cited
above. 9 For example, David J. Finlay explained the overthrow of
Nkrumah in
Ghana thus: "Also, Nkrumah had decided to form a 'people's
militia' as a supple? ment to his own 'presidential guard.' The
existence of such a large private army would threaten the autonomy,
the professionalism, the well-being, and indeed the very existence
of Ghana's 10,000-man army. The army rose against the government to
defend its own existence ..."
"The Ghana Coup ... One Year Later," Trans-action, May, 1967, p.
18.
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
The Latin American Military 241
had helped to overthrow in 1964) was a Communist, "but some of
the
leaders of his party are, as they showed during their time in
office that
they armed militias, wanted to put an end to the army, and
sponsored Communist movements." 10
It would be naive to posit an opposition between this type of
self-
interested motive and a concern for the national interest.
Johnson falls
into this trap when, in criticizing a paper presented by Lieuwen
at a
1964 West Point conference, he says: "I feel that Professor
Lieuwen is
perhaps unduly severe when he holds that officers are concerned
only with the welfare of their institutions. Certainly there is too
much self-
interest in the military as there is among civilians, but it is
also true, I
believe, that there are many officers who are dedicated to the
welfare of
their countries the same as there are civilians who are so
dedicated." X1
What this attitude misses is that to the military officer the
well-being and preservation of the military institution is
conceived of as a necessary aspect of the national interest, since
the mission of the military is to
defend the nation against its foreign and domestic enemies. The
point that Johnson wanted to make, that there are many
public-spirited
military officers concerned to defend national interests, is
prefectly cor?
rect; but it remains true that for many of them the defense of
national
interests begins with the defense of the military
institution?the two
concerns are not mutually opposed but are synonymous. Nor does
the fact that military intervention can be regarded as a
function of general political processes mean that one is
precluded from
assigning praise or blame to the actions of individual military
officers or
groups. Knowledge of the circumstantial factors contributing to
produce certain types of behavior does not exempt individuals from
responsi? bility for their actions. On the philosophical plane, one
can handle this
problem in a variety of ways, as the problem of reconciling free
will and determinism, or in terms of refuting the reductionist
fallacy, but in
any event it remains impossible to deny the legitimacy of
assessing in? dividual responsibility.
Ill
In opposition to the "traditionalist" conception of the military
as a conservative or reactionary force, exponents of the
"revisionist" ap? proach have urged the view that the modernization
of archaic social, economic, and administrative structures can come
about during an au-
1(> La Opinidn (Los Angeles), April 1,1967. n The West Point
Conference on Latin American Problems, 15-17 April 1964:
Final Report, p. 70.
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
242 Journal of Inter-American Studies
thoritarian military interlude, when a military government does
not have
to face obstruction from civilian politicians. The army is of
course for
modernization, the argument goes, since it is concerned with
technical
training and with developing a sophisticated industrial base
that can
provide high-quality arms, and also because its concern with the
pos?
sibility of foreign war induces a desire to have the nation
function at its
maximum efficiency, to generate the maximum in national power.
The
concept of the "modernizing military" clearly has a solid base
in African
and Asian experience, President Nasser being a common example
for
citation by this school of thought. It is certainly true that
many of the military figures active in recent
coups d'etat have the modernizing orientation, and the
manifestos is?
sued by new military juntas nowadays invariably cite the need to
reform
traditional structures, along with the more conventional
anti-Communist
rationalizations of the coup. Nevertheless, despite the great
number of
seizures of power by military forces in which people of this
tendency have figured, the only plausible example of a modernizing
military in the
recent history of Latin America that has actually accomplished
anything
permanent is that of El Salvador.
The modernizers rarely get a chance to achieve permanent
struc?
tural changes for a variety of reasons. In the first place, the
modernizing
tendency is only one element in the coalition of a variety of
military fac?
tions that organized the coup. In the second place, the drive
for moderni?
zation itself is broken up among several schools of thought when
it be?
comes necessary to translate a generalized desire for
modernization into
concrete legislative programs. In the third place, the
technicians to whom
the military innovators turn for advice in the drafting and
implementa? tion of reformed proposals are often conservatives
inherited from pre? vious governments, who exaggerate the
difficulties involved in bringing about change. Fourthly,
structural change is normally opposed by the civilians who allied
themselves with the military in bringing about the
coup, since in general these represent conservative and
oligarchic forces.
This is so because today the coup is most often directed against
an in?
novating government of center-left orientation, which was
overthrown in part because it was possible to ascribe to it
Communist tendencies.12 These difficulties are accentuated as the
military government attempts to devise and implement solutions to
the various problems that face it, at each step of the way
alienating influential groups both inside and out? side the
military junta.
12 Martin C. Needier, "Political Development and Military
Intervention in Latin America," American Political Science Review,
vol. LX, no. 3, September, 1966.
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
The Latin American Military 243
Finally, the problems of the military government reach a
climax
over the issue of the maintenance of public order in the face of
the
limitation of public political activity invariably imposed by
military gov? ernments. Typically, students demonstrate aganst the
regime, and the
military, dedicated to preserving "order" and understanding only
the
use of force, break up the demonstration violently, leaving one
or two
martyrs whose funeral occasions an even bigger demonstration,
more
violence, the alienation of the moderates from the military
government, and its eventual confrontation by a unified civilian
opposition that ranges all the way across the political spectrum.
Sooner or later the spiral of
repression and resistance reaches this point and sooner or later
the
military government is overthrown or forced to resign. The only
way of foreclosing this outcome is for the military leader?
ship to yield power before issues have been brought to this
extremity. Sometimes power is yielded only to a military president
formally com?
mitted to carrying on the programs of the junta, such as Costa e
Silva or
Barrientos; while this sort of result may conceal the fact that
the goals of the junta have been defeated and abandoned, clearly
the institution?
alized rule of a modernizing military is at an end, and a new
president,
although professionally a military man, is subject to the same
type of
situational pressures that would weigh on an elected civilian
president, and he functions more or less as such a president would.
Thus it is
highly likely that the only abiding result of the coup and the
succeeding
period of military rule is the removal of the president against
whom the
coup was directed. Typically, therefore, the only element to
benefit by the coup is the conservative oligarchy that incited the
military to stage the coup in the first place, fearful of the
left-wing tendencies of the
president against whom the coup was directed.
If one wants to minimize the autonomous role played by the
in?
tentions of military leaders, and instead regard their behavior
as simply a function of general political processes, he is brought
to the view that
in intervening in politics the military is "objectively" acting
as a tool of
the oligarchic forces in society, despite military desires for
moderniza?
tion; and that despite its public spirit and its concern for
modernization, the intervention of the military in politics
normally has the effect of
delaying the country's attainment of political maturity. Thus,
although the stress on situational imperatives that charac?
terizes the writings of what McAlister calls the "revisionist"
school adds
a dimension of sophistication to the oversimplified view of the
behavior of military officers as determined solely by their will,
this approach can?
not today be realistically combined with a conception of
military inter?
vention in Latin American politics as a progressive or
modernizing force.
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp
-
244 Journal of Inter-American Studies
The modernizing tendencies are those of mass participation and
the
shift in political power away from the oligarchies. The policies
of those
who cater to the newly politicized masses may be demagogic; they
may be economically ruinous and hurtful to good relations with
Western
Europe and the United States; modernization may be a painful
and
turbulent process, and justifications for military intervention
can be
devised with this in mind; but it would be a denial of the
evidence of the
last thirty years of Latin American history to argue that today
military intervention in Latin American politics represents on
balance a moderniz?
ing force.
This content downloaded from 128.243.2.141 on Wed, 13 May 2015
16:37:39 UTCAll use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions
http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jspArticle
Contentsp. 237p. 238p. 239p. 240p. 241p. 242p. 243p. 244Issue Table
of ContentsJournal of Inter-American Studies, Vol. 11, No. 2 (Apr.,
1969), pp. 173-344Front MatterFundamentos Para Uma Poltica
Educacional Brasileira [pp. 173-185]Economic and Political Aspects
of Development in Brazil--And U.S. Aid [pp. 186-208]Oliveira Lima
and the Catholic University of America [pp. 209-222]Trpico e
Desenvolvimento [pp. 223-236]The Latin American Military: Predatory
Reactionaries or Modernizing Patriots? [pp. 237-244]The Relevance
of Latin America to the Foreign Policy of Commonwealth Caribbean
States [pp. 245-271]Hostos y Su Pensamiento Militar [pp.
272-285]Castro: Economic Effects on Latin America [pp. 286-309]El
Pensamiento Filosfico de Augusto Pescador Sarget [pp. 310-316]A
Latin American-African Partnership [pp. 317-327]Book ReviewsReview:
untitled [pp. 328-330]Review: untitled [pp. 330-332]Review:
untitled [pp. 332-334]Review: untitled [pp. 335-337]Books Received
[pp. 338-341]Center NotesTitle [pp. 342-344]Back Matter