Stepping Forward: A Look at the History of the Armed Forces in Latin America
In a region challenged by increasingly resilient drug trafficking and organized crime networks, policymakers and scholars in defense and security circles are debating whether Latin American militaries should be involved in law enforcement activities, especially counternarcotics. This would be a serious error with grave implications for civil-military relations and democracy. Viewing the military and law enforcement debate in light of Latin America’s history makes clear the risks of including the military in police missions. Following a volatile past marked by military dictatorships and civil conflict, many countries have been struggling to build democratic defense systems, in the context of a region-wide democratic transition. Halting but important progress has been made in getting the military out of politics and out of roles that do not require a military structure or training. Mixing military and non-military roles in Latin America is a step backward, and a dangerous one. Hector Saint Pierre, an Argentine-Brazilian scholar, has argued that since the foundation of the American nations, each country's armed forces have played a central role in the region’s political configuration. Militaries were prominent throughout the nineteenth and early twentieth centuries as a result of the independence wars against the metropolis. But that early prominence extended long after the colonizers were defeated. Armies were the first autonomous institutional structures to emerge in the newborn states. For many countries, "the creation of a permanent army" was, in Alain Rouquie’s words, "the foundation of state sovereignty." Ever since, the armed forces have played a central role in many Latin American nations' political construction. From the ranks of military leadership emerged the decision-makers who spearheaded independence movements and influenced the development of early state structures. At the same time, Latin American societies were shaped by paternalistic, authoritarian, and repressive social relations between European descendants, hundreds of indigenous cultures, and black Africans brought to work as slaves in the region’s agricultural sector. Saint Pierre explains that in such a conflictive and plural social context, achieving internal order required the use of force. Ever since, the coercive force required to maintain that order has persisted in the form of extensive military presence. Augusto Varas, explains that the armed forces emerged not only as one of the most legitimate State institutions, but also in possession of a special prestige due to their professionalism and role in the creation of the nation-state that was hard to dispute. Viewing themselves as key political actors and the guardians of national values, military leaders took responsibility for their countries' internal development and international positioning. From the start, they sought to maintain social order while spearheading economic development, strategic autonomy, and national unity. Their dominant presence undermined the development of autonomous civilian state institutions capable of fulfilling obligations and responsibilities to the populace. Subsequently, Latin American states, trapped by their own impotence facing social demands, have chosen to employ the armed forces as the sole tool to affect structural and social change. As “saviors of the homeland,” militaries began to incorporate subsidiary missions delegated by national governments, reducing the States’ capacity and further increasing their internal dependence on military forces. By the late 1940s and early 1950s, the United States’ National Security Doctrine had achieved wide influence across Latin America. The doctrine effectively defined, both internally and internationally, whom Latin American countries should view as allies and enemies. While the Warsaw Pact personified Latin America’s foreign enemy, communist groups, social activists, politicians, and students were vilified domestically. Likewise, political, economic, and social matters were transformed into issues of security. This led to a securitization of nearly all aspects of daily life and opened the door for military intervention in internal matters. Together with the perception that the armed forces were multipurpose and immensely powerful, the new security paradigm led to multiple dictatorships across the region from the 1960s onwards. The consequences were dreadful: gross human rights violations and the complete destruction of civilian states' capacities. Since the democratic transitions that began in the 1980’s, Latin American countries have struggled to reform their military institutions to avoid repressive authoritarian tendencies and to place democratically elected civilian leaders firmly in command. The generally understood objective is to build professional armed forces that are respectful of human rights and the rule of law. To do so requires that governments draft clear and legally defined military missions, separate from police imperatives, directed by civilian leaders. Perhaps the strongest evidence supporting such a strategy is the success of the U.S. model of separate law enforcement and military missions, established by the 1870’s Posse Comitatus Act. However, much of Latin America is far from achieving democratically determined police and military institutions. The ever-increasing firepower of drug trafficking and organized crime groups has once again prompted the inclusion of the military in issues of internal security. When states are weak, it is sometimes understandable that they employ such measures. But, as any survey of Latin American history tells us, widespread military involvement hinders the establishment of a strong, legitimate and democratic institutional model of defense and law enforcement. Steps forward on internal security must be informed by history in order to avoid seeing it repeated.