Topic 1 Processes of

political change in Latin

America and political
cycles
Some historical background. Oligarchic
dominance and authoritarian regimes. Initial
democratic Failures. Revolutionary processes
(Cuba and Nicaragua). Military dictatorships
(Chile and Argentina). Third wave of
democratization. Human rights and Transitional
justice.
Some historical background
 Pre Colombine America
• Before Colón (Columbus), approximately 54 million
people lived in the region under different forms of political
organization:
– Two empires existed in what is now Mexico and Peru : the Aztec
Empire and the Inca Empire. The latter is the largest with a
population in pre-Columbian America that reached fourteen
million.
• There were central authorities that made decisions; this organization
had a monopoly on violence; there were different administrative bodies
with a hierarchy and specialized functions; and they would also try to
expand the amount of territory they controlled.
– There were other forms of organization, for example around
chiefs in the Caribbean area, or in nomadic conditions with tribal
chiefs, for example in the Brazilian Amazon or in Patagonia.
 The conquest
• The first zone of colonial influence was the Caribbean
island of Hispaniola.
• In that first attempt, they established a plantation economy,
social classes, an authoritarian political structure and
supported by the Church. Then they moved to Cuba and
Puerto Rico and then to Mexico and … then Panama,
Colombia, Ecuador, Peru, Chile. While Portugal reached the
coast of Brazil. Then the Spaniards occupied Bolivia,
Paraguay.
– Two milestones were the defeat of the Aztecs (1521) by Hernán
Cortes and that of the Incas in 1532 by Francisco Pizarro.
• It took 100 years to conquer Central and South America
 Spanish and Portuguese rule

• For three centuries European descendants established colonialism until the

beginning of the 19th century.
• The inhabitants of the Americas were part of one of two empires: the Spanish
Empire and the Portuguese Empire.
• The ultimate authority was abroad. They were the monarchs and the territories
were colonies.
• Both empires had viceroys (virreyes) who were the envoys of the monarchs.
Spain subdivided into Areas but Portugal did not.
– The part under Spanish rule was divided between the Viceroyalty of New Spain and
the Viceroyalty of Peru. Then the Viceroyalty of Peru was divided into Nueva Granda
and La Plata.
• Complex administrative apparatuses were designed to distribute land, taxes,
control trade, administration and justice. It was difficult for rulers to reach
places far from the capitals. It was a patrimonial management more than a legal
one since the authority was the personal power of the king rather than directives
or laws.
Film recommendation. La misión
Siglo XIV
Siglo XVIII
 Three types of economy during la Colonia

- Mining: with indigenous people, many people died from diseases,

violence and exploitation at work (Mexico, Peru and Bolivia).
- Plantation agriculture: in tropical areas: cocoa, cotton, sugar,
coffee, rubber, bananas. Relied on slave labor. Large number of
slaves to norther brazil, Cuba, Colombia, Dominican Republic,
Central America.
- Extensive agriculture. Cattle, sheep, wheat... Argentina, Uruguay,
Paraguay, northern Brazil. Native population disappeared in the
early stages of the colonial period. Nor did they rely as much on
slaves as in other areas.
Type of economy had effects on the racial composition of the later
population.
 Mestizaje
Colonies rapidly became multiracial and multiethnic: colonizers
had children with indigenous women an black slaves in
relationships with violence, oppression and inequality.
A cast system was created. There were three core groups in the
colonies: a) White Europeans and Europeans born in the colonies
(peninsulars and criollos). b) Indians c) Afro-Americans. And
also…. d) mestizaje
Whites were considered superior. There was a certain social
mobility due to habits, marriages...
Differences between areas:
Mexico, Ecuador and Peru. Indians were the majority of the population.
Brazil, Dominican Republic, Panama, Venezuela and Cuba. Afro-
Americans represented the largest group;
Uruguay, Chile, Paraguay and Argentina whites constituted the largest
group..
 Strugles for independence
• They emerged throughout the region from 1810 onwards, taking advantage of
the power vacuum caused by events in Europe.
• Power vacuum: the Napoleonic invasion of the peninsula, the imprisonment of
the king of Spain, the exile of the Portuguese king to Brazil.
• In this context, the ideals of independence were expanding. Also the desire of
the local elites to end the trade monopolies and to be able to trade freely,
especially with Great Britain. Creoles versus Penisulares.
• The wars of independence spread throughout the Spanish colonies. In South
America, the armies led by Simón Bolívar and San Martín were key. In
Mexico, Miguel Hidalgo and José María Morelos. In Brazil, independence
was achieved in a peculiar and less violent way.
• By 1825 almost all territories were independent, except for Cuba and
Dominican Republic.
 First years after independence

• Countries were independent from Spanish Crown,

• But it had not taken place a social or political
revolution that had radically changed the established
order.
• New states retained their elitist and conservative
orientation despite the fact that Afro-descendants,
indigenous peoples and women had fought.
• They were led by the Creole elite to take power
away from the monarch and defend the social
hierarchy.
 Challenges derived from independence
Initial period of anarchy in the 1920s due to the regional caudillos who had
their armies and installed political instability.

The state as a central institution in each country did not have much power and it
was difficult to establish political authority. Governments plagued by caudillos
and were later overthrown by other caudillos.

Civil wars had destroyed the productive infrastructure and led to economic
stagnation.

Trade was paralyzed, public debt was rising, landowners retreated to their estates
and concentrated on their family fortunes, and the Spanish

Trade of slaves was forbidden but not slavery (Brazil and Cuba last countries to
ban slavery). A sense of racial hierarchy lasted.
 US and LA

• Latin America became independent from Europe but began a

relationship of US interventionism in Latin America.
• US saw the independence processes as an opportunity to have its own
presence. It adopted an imperialist point of view.
– Monroe Doctrine (1823): America for the Americans. Any European
intervention in America would be seen as a grievance to the US and would
merit a forceful response.
– US expansionism in America: Puerto Rico, Cuba; Invasions in Panama,
Nicaragua, Haiti, Dominican Republic.
• Good neighbor policy (Roosevelt).Greetings friends.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ih3M-OD6x5YT
• The OAS (Organización de Estados Americanos) is created
• Back and forth in the relationship with LA: examples of opposing
conceptions: Carter vs. Reagan
Oligarchic dominance and authoritarian
regimes (1880-1930)
 State formation processes
• Economy provided incentives and opportunities for state
formation.
• The process of state formation was driven by the desire to take
advantage of opportunities to trade to meet the European
demand for the primary products. (Trade led model of state
formation).
• European demand for raw materials increased. Opportunity to
export and to grow .
• This boom of exportation provided resources to borrow money
from abroad to build state infrastructure and increasingly
centralize power.
 Agro-export model: 1880-1930

Demand for materials in Europe and the United States. This was
an incentive for pacification. Emphasis on the export of
agricultural products, livestock, mineral products and the import
of manufactured products from industrialized countries.
Receptiveness to foreign investment.
Free trade.
The role of the state in the economy was small
Taxes were imposed on imports above all. Economic liberalism did not
correspond to respect for civil liberties.
Almost irrelevant social policies with some exceptions such as Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Uruguay.
It ends with the Great Depression which leads to the collapse of exports.
 Interpretations for state weakness in LA
A state is strong when it is able to control violence, to enforce laws, to defend
its territory, as well as to develop policies throughout the country.

For some scholars, the origins of weak states date back to the Spanish and
Portuguese heritage. They point to the cultural bias inherited from the colony
as a source of social values against the development of state capacity. Some
even point to roots in the corporatist and Catholic traditions of Spain and
Portugal. Wiarda 2001, Stein 1970....

A variant of this explanation focuses on the institutions that were established.

Colonizers established institutions where power was shared, for example in
most of the British colonies, the capacity of the state has proven greater in the
long run. In contrast, where colonizers focused on natural resource extraction,
predatory institutions were installed and this led to weak states being formed.
According to this view states were permeated by patrimonialism. (Robinson
2012).
 Other interpretations for state weakness in LA

• It is also explained by the events of the 19th century. Colonial

practices were patrimonial but also that the withdrawal of the
colonial powers that gave an opportunity for a new beginning to
end the patrimonialism and privilege of the colonial period was
not taken advantage of (Centeno 2022).
– The construction of the states in LA was through wars between
caudillos. This destroyed the capacity to finance the state because it
blocked growth, productivity...).
• A similar argument is made by Mazzuca (2021): the process of
territorial consolidation in LA led to the creation of weak states.
Rather than eliminating patrimonial practices, modern states
incorporated these practices with low levels of state capacity.
Oligarchic and authoritarian regimes (1880-
1930)
• Once processes of state formation had been
completed, the social group known as oligarchy was
the dominant actor: wealthiest people in their
countries (sugar planters, coffee growers, mine
owners, bankers…)..
• High concentration of economic power within
countries in a small group of people.
• Elites were usually descendents from Europeans and
shared a hierarchical view of societal relations.
• Governments were pro oligarchy
 Varieties of oligarchic regims
• Constitutional Oligarchies with different of
respect to election results and topeoples´s
rights (in some cases, some sort of civilian
authoritarianism). Some of these constitutional
oligarchies became partial democracies (Chile,
Colombia, Brazil, Argentina).
• Personalist dictatorships. México, Nicaragua,
sometimes were puppet regimes of US. Haiti,
Dominican Republic, Panamá.
 Personalist dictatorships
• The leader consolidates himself in power and has the capacity to recruit
and make decisions marginalizing other institutions such as the army or the
party, if it exists.
• He usually comes to power after a military coup or, after being elected
president, after a coup. There is no institutionalized system of decision
making. Dictators are usually overthrown by irregular means (coups,
assassinations, revolts).
• These regimes can become hereditary. Duvalier in Haiti or Somoza in
Nicaragua.
• They are based on the privatization of public power and consequently there
are high levels of corruption to buy loyalties. Effective elites are small and
include friends, family members. Loyalty relations are based on the
exchange of rents and favors in exchange for support to the leader.
Examples: Trujillo in Dominican (1930-1961), Somoza in Nicaragua
(1936-1979).
Book recommendations: In the time of butterflies by Julia Alvárez, The feast
of the goat by Mario Vargas Llosa
 Initial democratic failures
• In some countries old elites managed to hold onto power without making
any major concessions. (El Salvador, Nicaragua, Dominican Republic…)
• In other cases oligarchic resistance to changes was the defeated, but the
change was so complete that pluralism was eliminated: Revolutions in
Mexico and Cuba. New forms of personalist dictatorship.
• In other countries intra elite competition (i.e. Chile) or mass movements
(Argentina, Brazil and Bolivia) initiated some forms of democracy.
• Other countries got full democracy: Venezuela in 1948, Panamá 1960,
Dominican Republic 1963. Voting rights , however were, limited to
males.

See Munck and Luna. page 101 extension of suffrage

Revolutionary processes (Cuba and
Nicaragua)
 Revolutions in LA
• Revolutions cannot be understood without the existence of tyrants or dictators
who generate a situation of continued oppression that precedes the revolutionary
outbreak.
• Revolutions are radical, profound and violent changes in the established social,
cultural, economic and political order that occur in situations of great social
discontent and where those in favor of changing the status quo converge in a
strategy of confrontation against the established power.T
• revolutions tend to pursue different goals: “They are at the same time revolutions
of national liberation and anti-dictatorial, and imply a social and economic
transformation and a questioning of the previous forms of domination” (Martí).
• Four main revolutions in Latin America
– Mexican Revolution: 1910
– Bolivian Revolution: 1952
– Cuban Revolution: 1959
– Nicaraguan Revolution: 1979
• The challenges of these revolutions are: the democratic question, the question of
national sovereignty, the question of development (Martí).
 Cuban Revolution

• Against Batista´s governmet (1958, 1959 Havana) until

these days
• Leader of the revolution: Fidel Castro (until his death in
2016), then Raul Castro (brother) and now Miguel Díaz
Canel
• Ideology: Marxism-Leninism (vanguard). from Lenin.
the most class-conscious and politically "advanced"
sections of the proletariat or working class, described
as the revolutionary vanguard, form organizations to
advance the objectives of communism.,
 Meaning of the Cuban Revolution
• It provided the first example in the region of a modern
noncapitalist system and against the US.
• It led to growing political polarization and a strong
authoritarian response in the region.
• It had a decisive influence in Latin America because some
sectors of the left began to assume that armed struggle
could be a perfectly viable path to power. Although the
coup d'état against Allende and the authoritarianisms that, in
general, invaded the continent isolated Cuba considerably.
• Different guerrilla organizations were created after the
Cuban example
 Experts have said:

• “Fidel Castro managed to redefine the possibilities

of revolutionary triumph in Latin America by
arguing that if Cuba, close to the United States,
could carry out a revolution, why couldn't other
Latin American countries…?” (Wickham-Croley
1992).
• “Cuba appeared like a thunderclap in the midst of
skepticism and legality. It showed that the victory of
an anti-imperialist revolution in Latin America was
possible, and at that very moment” (Debray 1970).
 Current Cuban authoritarian regime

• Authoritarian regime, a caudillista style with charismatic domination.

• Political opposition is persecuted
• Extreme nationalism and anti US (economic embargo)
• Rusia’s area of influence (before soviet area of influence): fundamental role
of the state in the orientation and planning of the new socialist economy,
problems with the private ownership of the means of production.
• Implementation of egalitarian socio-economic policies. In its origins it tackled
structural problems that meant important changes in Cuba: elimination of
illiteracy, massive schooling, housing, full employment although with low
productivity, universal health care, cessation of the marginalization of women,
mulattos, blacks.
• But once the minimums were reached and decades have passed, welfare levels
have decreased and the state apparatus has become obsolete and overwhelmed
and needs the transformation of the political system.
Film recommedation: Comandante (2003). Directed by Oliver Stone
 Nicaraguan Revolution (1979-1990)

• Also called Revolución Popular Sandinista (in memory of a former

revolutionary).
• It put an end to the dictatorship of the Somoza family, overthrowing the
third Somoza, Anastasio Somoza Debayle.
• Context: Strong personal control of the country and economy,
repression, alliance with U.S. economic and political interests.
Nicaragua played the role of gendarme in the region against the
supposed communist threat.
• Electoral frauds. Personal enrichment: 1972 with Managua earthquake
 Ideological basis of the Nicaraguan revolution
• Foquismo (focos, similar to vanguard). Che Guevara:
the Cuban Revolution showed that “it is not always necessary to wait
for all the conditions for revolution”, since a small foco initiating
actions typical of guerrilla warfare could relatively quickly achieve
the spread of the revolution, thus obtaining the uprising of the masses
and the overthrow of the regime.
mainly valid for countries with less industrial development.
“focos” should take the peasantry as their social base.
• dependency theory: Faleto, Cardoso, Do Santos... argue that economies
exporting raw materials have always experienced a deterioration in the
terms of trade with respect to economies exporting industrial products.
Hence, there is an industrial center and an agrarian/rural periphery that are
asymmetrically related.
• liberation theology (Catholic church): liberation from the sin of inequality
 Evolution of the Nicaraguan Revolution

• increasing political participation

• an economy favoring the majority
• “Nicaragua in charge of its own destiny”

However,
• Progressive radicalization and verticalism within Junta
Revolucionaria
• Internal Divisions and lost of support from businessmen and from
Catholic church
• “Low-intensity” war: the U.S.-financed contra war
• Unable to continue with social reforms
• International isolation
 Counterinsurgency and the United States
• Military escalation, counterrevolutionary aggression. A unitary actor, the
Contras, takes shape in the country as a counterrevolutionary coalition:
Nicaraguan Contras or Nicaraguan Resistance.
• Supported by the United States (military and economic harassment from
1981 under Reagan), it fiercely fought against Nicaragua's revolutionary
project for several reasons.
• Reagan Doctrine in Central America:- intolerance towards the possibility
of the development of an autonomous political project in an area hitherto
considered its own.- political danger posed by the creation of a
transformative project based on a legitimacy, discourse and logic totally
alien to the U.S. tradition.- potential demonstration effect it would have
on its neighbors, especially El Salvador and Nicaragua.

President Reagan’s address to the Nation

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QaJQFor6KhQ
 Elections in Nicaragua 1990 and end of the
Revolution
• too much expenditure in Defense, US trade embargo= bankruptcy…
• budges cuts led to public dissatisfaction.
• international pressure to democratize the county: in 1984 elections
opposition did not participate and results were not recognized;
Contadora Group and Esquipulas agreement: democratize the region

• international electoral observation and electoral defeat

• Violeta Barrios de Chamorro was elected President of Nicaragua
(coalition of the political opposition)
 Why sandinistas lost the election?

• economic situation
• war situation
• widespread desire to improve the relationship with the United
States (Panamá’s invasion interpreted as a warning)
• FSLN was perceived as hostile to the Catholic Church: Pope´s visit
• End of cold war and of the world divided in blocs
• Piñata: sandinistas pillage state propery: some 500 to 600
Sandinista political leaders and military officers claimed title to
luxurious residences and summer houses, huge farms, factories,
vehicles of every description, and so forth. Additionally, thousands
more mid-level functionaries of the party and army have taken less
ostentatious goods.
Military dictatorships
 Political cycles
• 1900-1939: 1st wave of democratisation: Argentina, Chile, Mexico,
Uruguay are the first democratic expressions. Elites embraced
democracy not so much out of conviction but as a strategy to resolve
disputes between elite factions.
• 1940-1977: 2nd wave of democratisation: Bolivia, Brazil, Colombia,
Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Peru,
Venezuela. Promoted by the middle classes as a result of socio-
economic development. Electoral democracies that disappear. Two
reverse waves: in the mid-1950s with different military coups and in
the 1960s and 1970s (Brazil, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Ecuador...).
• 1978-2000: 3 waves of democratisation: El Salvador, Haiti, Honduras,
Nicaragua, Panama, Paraguay and the re-democratisations of countries
whose democracies had collapsed in a counter-democratisation wave.
 Context for reverse waves of democratization:
Guerrilla surges and wars against subversion
• in the 1960s Latin America witnessed the explosion of
more than thirty guerrilla movements: El Salvador,
Uruguay, Guatemala, Brazil, Argentina....
• Latin American militaries wanted to stop subversive
forces. Civilian governments increased military budgets,
internal missions of the armed forces, enlarged the size of
the armed forces... in the fight against guerrilla sabotage.
• Military perceived the situation as one of total war,
repression in the name of patriotism, national security...
The military authorities perceived it as a long-term
struggle. It was the prelude to the coups d'état.
 Populism and military coups

• After the first wave of democratization in the 1940s,

there was a backlash that destabilized regimes an led
to breakdowns of democracies.
• Specially where there were strong populist
movements (charismatic leader, supported by urban
workers, peasants…against interest of the elites…) ,
the old elites considered democracy threatening.
• Tension led to military interventions: coups that
produces the breakdown of democracy in Peru,
Venezuela, Argentina, Ecuador, Bolivia, Brazil…
Military coups
 Waves of military coups in Latin America

• The period of most coups is between 1910 and 1919. crisis of oligarchic rule.
Competitive oligarchies were at the helm of the countries. They had
encouraged economic expansion based on the export-import model. An
incipient working class has formed. They begin to make demands about their
working conditions. The oligarchic classes were unable to find solutions. In
many cases they invited the military to take power and impose law and order
and in other cases the military did not wait for the invitation.
• The second peak of coups was in the 1930s. The economic crisis of the
depression called into question the viability of the export-import strategies,
social suffering persisted, trade union and peasant unrest, strikes, violence...
• The third peak was in the 1960s and 1970s. The military settled in countries
such as Argentina, Brazil and Peru for extended periods of time. Concern
about communist penetration, social conflict intensifies, threat of subversion.
These were the coups d'état of the Cold War.
Military dictatorships (Chile and Argentina)
 Pre-authoritarian Chile and the 1973 coup
• Long democratic trajectory
• Allende elected president under a coalition “Unidad popular”
• Society divided in three thirds
• Many reforms were implemented. nationalisation of key companies in the
Chilean economy, nationalisation of mining, deepening of agrarian reform.
• Inflation, social unrest…
• All this led to a crisis of legitimacy, inability to control the revolts, and an
erosion of democratic commitment.
• The coup inaugurated an authoritarian period, unusual in the country's
history (in terms of its duration and cruelty).

Film recommendation: Salvador Allende. 2007, by Patricio

Guzmán
 Why Chile's coup was successful?

• Polarisation: three irreconcilable projects (right, centre, left)

• Excessively maximalist reforms by the last president:
nationalisation of key companies in the Chilean economy,
nationalisation of mining, deepening of agrarian reform.
– As a reaction to these measures, US support for the democratic
and non-democratic opposition to the Allende government was
another important factor. Opposition called to overthrow
Allende.
 Armed Forces did not give Allende much support

Film suggestion: Chile. La memoria obstinada.

1997. Dirigida por Patricio Guzmán
 Authoritarian Chile(1973-1989)

• Pinochet: personalist dictatorship

• Violations of human rights (death, jail, tortures..) and also, infringement
of freedoms, political parties in recess and political persecution of the
opposition, permanent attempt at political demobilisation.
• Depoliticisation of Chilean society: political parties are evils
• Neoliberal economic model that profoundly transformed Chilean society.
• Constitution approved in 1980 established a presidentialist regime with
strong powers for the president: creates a bicameral legislature; appointed
senators and senators for life;
• Commitment to endorse, eight years after the approval of the text,
support for the presidential candidate proposed by the commander-in-
chief of the armed forces and the director of the carabineros through
consultation with the public.
 Features of authoritarian regimes

• Most of them were military led regimes (vs. regimes with a

civilian façade and supported by Armed Forces, one party regime
(Mexico)
• Armed Forces ususually claim that they are trying to safeguard
order. They tend to leave power once they have achieved their
objectives or are unable to deal with internal divisions.
• concentration of power in a small coalition of actors (military,
civilian, party...) who maintain a certain competition for the
distribution of power. It can be more or less personalist.
personalist military regimes (Chile, Paraguay), military regimes
(Argentina, Perú, Uruguay)
• Legitimacy based on abstract principles (family, progress, order,
justice) without a strong and structured ideology.
• arbitrary and discontinuous repressive action
 Distinc feature among military regimes: inclusionary vs exclusionary
regimens

Inclusionary:
• Some institutionalised military regimes had long-term commitments to consistent
ideological programmes: elimination of subversive forces, real or imagined, and
transformation of nations' economic and social structures.
• There were inclusive or populist military regimes that sought to create a base of
support for military rule by mobilising sets of political actors around national
reformist projects.
• They did not engage in large-scale campaigns of repression against their citizens.
They attempted redistributive measures, strengthened the economic role of the state
i.e. Omar Torrijos in Panama (1968-1981), Velasco in Peru (1968-1975). Considerable
variation in ideological conviction. For example, the Peruvian generals adapted neo-
Marxist and dependency theory.
 Exclusionary military regimes

• Their central driving force was demobilization . Popular sector groups were the main source of
opposition.
• Support for this exclusionary authoritarianism came from the middle and upper classes, and
internationally oriented economic interests.
i.e. Brazil (1964-1985; Argentina 1966-1973 and 1976-1983, Chile (1973-1989).

• Ideological commitment encompasses a range of principles: anti-communism, economic

liberalism, insistence on morality, devotion to country, belief in the inherent virtues of law and
order.
• There have been more reactionary regimes than progressive ones, and in addition exclusionary
regimes prevailed for extended periods in important countries such as Argentina, Brazil and
Chile.
• Moreover, the reactionary/exclusionary regimes incorporated technocrats they trusted. Especially
in Argentina, Chile, Uruguay
• They assumed crucial roles in the design and implementation of policy, especially economic
policy.
• They forged alliances with the national business class elite: authoritarian bureaucratic regimes
(O'Donnell).
Third wave of democratization (1978-1989)
 Third wave of transitions to democracy1978-1990

• Most of these transitions were elite led transitions between authoritarian regime and opposition.
– Different roles of government and oppposition in transitions to democracy: Huntington-
(Linz):
• Transformation (reform): elites in power took the lead in bringing about democracy.
Chile, Perú, Brazil. it occurred in well-established military regimes where
governments clearly controlled the ultimate means of coercion vis-a-vis the
opposition and/or vis-a-vis authoritarian systems that had been successful
economically. Change from above.
• Replacement (also called: ruptura, breakdown, collapse): opposition groups took the
lead in bringing about democracy, and the authoritarian regime collapsed or was
overthrown. Argentina
• Transplacement (extrication): when democratization resulted largely from joint action
by government and opposition groups.El Salvador Bolivia
(sometimes fuzzy lines between transformation and transplacement)
• Very few democracies were achieved through foreign imposition: Panamá, in a sense Dominican
Republic
• People’s and experts’ concern used to be referred to survival of new democracies and ability to
implement reforms.
 Groups involved in transitions and interactions
Government: Democratizers and standpatters
Opposition: Radical and moderates

• In transformations, the interaction between reformers and standpatters within the governing
coalition was of central importance; and the transformation only occurred if reformers were
stronger than standpatters, if the government was stronger than the opposition, and if the
moderates were stronger than the extremists. As the transformation went on, opposition
moderates were often coopted into the governing coalition while standpatter groups opposing
democratization defected from it.
• In replacements, the interactions between government and opposition and between moderates and
extremists were important; the opposition eventually had to be stronger than the government, and
the moderates had to be stronger than the extremists. A successive defection of groups often led
to the downfall of the regime and inauguration of the democratic system.
• In transplacements the central interaction was between reformers and moderates not widely
unequal in power, with each being able to dominate the antidemocratic groups on its side of the
line between the government and the opposition. In some transplacements, government and
former opposition groups agreed on at least a temporary sharing of power.

Source: Huntington, Samuel. 1991. How Countries Democratize. Political Science Quarterly, Vol.
106, No. 4, pp. 579-616
 Conditions posited by Military leaders

Two"exit guarantees" for their withdrawal from power

– there would be no prosecution, punishment, or other retaliation against
military officers for any acts they may have committed when they were
in power.
– the institutional roles and autonomy of the military establishment
would be respected, including its overall responsibility for national
security, its leadership of the government ministries concerned with
security, and often its control of arms industries and other economic
enterprises traditionally under military aegis.
Source: Huntington, Samuel. 1991. How Countries Democratize.
Political Science Quarterly, Vol. 106, No. 4, pp. 579-616
 Ability of militaries to secure conditions

• Depends on their relative power:

– In Brazil, Peru, and other instances of transformation, the military
leaders dominated the process and civilian political leaders had little
choice but to acquiesce to the demands of the military.
– Where relative power was more equal, as in Uruguay, negotiations led
to some modifications in the military demands. Argentinean military
leaders asked for the same assurances other leaders did. Their requests,
however, were rejected out of hand by civilian leaders, and they had to
agree to a virtual unconditional surrender of power
Source: Huntington, Samuel. 1991. How Countries Democratize. Political
Science Quarterly, Vol. 106, No. 4, pp. 579-616
 Chilean transition to democracy: an unfinished
task?
• Referendum in 1988: Pinochet is defeated.
https://www.google.com/search?
sca_esv=658059ba84023065&sca_upv=1&biw=1366&bih=641&q=chile+la+alegria+ya+viene+spot&tbm=vid
&source=lnms&fbs=AEQNm0CbCVgAZ5mWEJDg6aoPVcBgWizR0-
0aFOH11Sb5tlNhdzTfxpAVBoexMFZnKJBpl_OnTFfcge8advfRBIXE7C_R23cjlMym-
3NbrOzYxr1L7qZemYLyAgKXh3eU_GTn3IJPIzywzTkkVol0Ctl0_ECq_ld8pWx2CiKslO1L2UQa9EJXjX-
ReXJKj3ZdQyhOrS9maigl&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj79I3D386IAxVH2gIHHXThLTMQ0pQJegQIERAB#fpstat
e=ive&vld=cid:4c301a52,vid:IFAMpW0hPNY,st:0
• Elections in 1989: a center-left coalitions wins (Concertación de partidos
por la democracia). Aylwin elected president.
• Pinochet continues as Chief Commander of Armed Forces.
• Quick movements from Dictatorship in the aftermath of transitions: TV
and other state companies are sold to friends, Young judges are nominated
and other asket to get retired, reorganization of electoral constituencies
and electoral system)…
• Authoritarian enclaves: Constitution, Senate,
 Two main approaches to explain transitions to democracy

Factores explicativos

• structural aspects: modernisation theories pointing to

variables such as economic development (Lipset);
political culture (Almond and Verba). The 1950s and
1960s
– Not a sufficient condition
– economic development and democracy do not always go hand
in hand: in Latin America, periods of social and economic
modernisation experienced severe authoritarian setbacks.
• political actions and strategies of the actors: determinism
is abandoned and contingency is assumed.
Combination of both approaches: they are interrelated (Linz
and Stepan).
 Explanatory variables for the third wave of democratization in Latin America

Although the specific causes differ from country to country:

• Loss of legitimacy of authoritarian regimes: fight against
subversion and severe economic crisis.
• Intellectual and ideological changes: moderation of the left,
left-wing sectors modify their approaches.
• Changes in the relationship between the military and the
right.
• Role of elites
External factors: think tanks, USA, contagion effect.
Human rights and Transitional justice
 Human rights policies and measures

In the aftermath of the transition, many issues

arise, among others:

How is justice done for human rights violations?

Achieving civilian control over the armed forces
Building collective memory
Reconstruction of the judicial system
 Transitional justice

• It is a process that some countries have undergone after

transitions form dictatorship to democracy and/or from
civil war to peace and inherit a history of human rights
violations. Countries face up to their traumatic past.
• Transitional justice focuses on harm done during earlier
time. It addresses damages caused by state agents that
cannot be reversed by any action of the state.
• It aims to reveal the truth about the past and offers a
partial remedy by fulfilling the victims or families….”
(extracted from Munck and Luna 2022)
 Instruments for transitional justice

• Truth commissions. These are ad hoc commissions authorised

by governments but operating independently. Tasked with
discovering and revealing past wrongdoing by a government.
They search for the facts, focused on severe violence, can
make recommendations (e.g. on reparations). Argentina and
Chile were the first countries.

• Trials
 Argentina's Amnesty Dilemma
New democracies had to achieve: Militaries subordination to civilian
power, control over military policy.
• Gross violations of human rights that occurred during the military
dictatorship of 1976 to 1983 in Argentina.
• After transitions. Pressure from Mothers of the Plaza de Mayo and
other groups from civil society
• Argentinian dictatorship had been a massive failure,… an recently they
had a military defeat in the Falklands against Britain.
• The Military during the transition to civilian rule exonerated
themselves: the actions carried out were acts of service in the fight
against subversion and terrorism.
 Trials,amnesty laws, balance

• A series of amnesty laws and pardons protected the perpetrators of many of

the crimes of the military regime through most of the 1990’s, When Alfonsín
won the first elections he promoted a law revoking the self-amnesty... later he decided to
tackle the question of trials with moderation and limited himself to the high command.
Military pressure. Punto Final Law and the Law of Due Obedience.
– 1989 elections, won by Menem. Amnesty for officers involved in the dirty war and then
pardoned all junta leaders.
• The message to the rest of the military in other countries was clear: do not
submit to trials in civilian courts.
• in 2005 the Argentine Supreme Court declared those laws unconstitutional.
• Balance: around 30.000 people disappeared. 1200 people condemned in
300 trials.
Film recomendation: Argentina, 1985
 Human Rights in Chile
As opposed to Argentina, in Chile

the dictator was in a position of power: in command of the army,

negotiated transition, He had accepted the referendum.free market
measures were considered a success by many domestic and international
sectors. Many sectors of civil society were willing to accept the dirty war.

Presidente Alywin (1989) created the National Truth and Reconciliation

Commission, which issued the Rettig report.

Since then:
Ongoing process of civil trials against military personnel.
 Have the Armed Forces abandoned politics?

• They have managed to escape human rights campaigns

relatively unscathed.
• Have not sought to undermine their subordination to
civilian authority (years ago…: the cold war and the
communist threat)
• Aware of the need to restore discipline, dignity and
morale to their profession
• Forging a new prestige: the fight against drugs as a means
of regaining resources, skills and new autonomy. Involved
in policy implementation (humanitarian and health
missions)
Thank you!