Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Rut Diamint
Journal of Democracy, Volume 26, Number 4, October 2015, pp. 155-168 (Article)
Access provided by your local institution (11 May 2018 19:30 GMT)
9/11/15.
A New Militarism in
Latin America
Rut Diamint
risen the political power of the armed forces. This is not the old-school
type of military influence once familiar to students of Latin American
politics: In the past it was typically long-ruling elites, fearing displace-
ment by the expansion of suffrage, who went knocking on the barracks
door. Military interventions in politics
back then were about restoring the old
In no case has a Latin conservative order and protecting those
American military’s who benefited from it. Today, the armed
involvement in civil forces have returned to the center of the
policing improved political sphere as allies of—and often
public security. substitute institutions for—elected Latin
American governments.
This is most clearly the case in the five
Spanish-speaking ALBA countries—Bolivia, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicara-
gua, and Venezuela—where civilian elites increasingly depend on the
military to keep them in power.3 In the region’s most notorious recent
use of military power for domestic political purposes, Venezuela’s Pres-
ident Nicolás Maduro—facing massive demonstrations fueled by public
anger at basic consumer-goods shortages—has not only relied on the
armed forces to suppress protests, but has several times even sent troops
to take over stores.4 As Roberto Giusti has said, the Venezuelan armed
forces have become a “military oligarchy” with economic and political
interests that make them an “autonomous bloc in Venezuelan politics.”5
But even outside the ALBA countries, Latin American presidents
have been responding to urgent citizen demands for improved public
order and security by granting extralegal powers to military officials.
In the bargain, the elected civilians not only lose power but also hand
the soldiers a direct and privileged relationship with society. The armed
forces are not grabbing power by force; instead, desperate presidents are
gladly giving it to them.
The rise of Latin American armed forces as key political allies of gov-
ernments (with the implication that, as allies, they need to be placated and
to have their interests served) stems in part from the imperfect civilianiza-
tion of the region’s defense ministries. Thus it can be understood in part
as “unfinished business” left over from the era of democratic transition.
A second worrisome trend has been a double dynamic in which military
forces are increasingly called on to carry out domestic-policing functions,
even as police agencies receive missions and equipment that render them
increasingly military-like. To have police officers acting almost like sol-
diers (as in the case, for instance, of Mexico’s drug war) while civilian
authorities become directly and dramatically dependent on the military
for domestic security is obviously problematic for democracy. The un-
finished business that must be tackled is not an optional item: No Latin
American democracy can be called consolidated until civilian control of
the armed forces is securely institutionalized.
Rut Diamint 157
The rule of law suffers every day. Weak justice systems, political
impunity, powerful criminal organizations, security institutions crippled
by corruption—these all lay siege to the state’s ability to provide citi-
zens with safety and order.
Yet in no case—not one—has a Latin American military’s involve-
ment in civil policing improved public security. If anything, as a string
of disturbing Human Rights Watch reports attests, military policing has
raised concerns over human-rights abuses. Some politicians reacting to
rising crime and disorder have suggested that human rights and the rule
of law are luxuries that Latin American countries can ill afford, but a
military acting like a police force threatens not only the rights of civil-
158 Journal of Democracy
ians but also its own proper institutional identity. Let us consider how
that is so.
Latin America experts have written extensively about the mistakes and
Rut Diamint 159
problems resulting from the use of the military in policing roles. Several
authors also warn about the special dangers of involving the armed forces
in the fight against the drug trade. Using the military against narcotrafi-
cantes, these experts caution, may lead to increased corruption, institu-
tional weakness, and the criminal infiltration of public agencies. When
troops are used to enforce domestic order, abuses against civilians always
result. Even in the less ambiguous role of fighting organized guerrillas,
army officers have committed inexplicable miscalculations. As a Human
Rights Watch report on Colombia points out:
More than 800 members of the army—most of them low-ranking sol-
diers—have been convicted for extrajudicial killings committed between
2002 and 2008. . . . The convictions have covered a handful of former
battalion and other tactical unit commanders, but not a single officer who
was commanding a brigade or holding a position higher up in the chain
of command at the time of the crimes. Of the 16 active and retired army
generals under investigation, none have been formally charged.10
into a service for which military units are poorly suited—they complain
about armed repression. It used to be said that militaries typically re-
sisted acting like police.17 Is this still the case? Taking on policing tasks
has allowed militaries to buy new weapons, to be in direct contact with
citizens, and to develop political relationships with mayors, governors,
and businesspeople.
Without effective means for fighting crime, Latin American govern-
ments turn to the armed forces for favors, but favors must be repaid.
Accepting them can even make you a hostage, as politicians are learn-
ing. Soldiers tasked with providing public security say “trust us,” and
what choice do the political authorities have but to do just that, once the
ordinary ways and means of civilian supremacy have gone by the board?
The problem may be even more acute when irregular rather than regular
armed forces are involved. Initially organized to defend the Bolivarian
Revolution, Venezuela’s colectivos armados have gained autonomy and
now answer more to particular political figures rather than the govern-
ment. As Larry Diamond has noted, “the [Venezuelan] government’s
toleration (or even organization) of criminal violence to demobilize
middle-class opposition has risen.”18 Colectivos have clashed several
times with security forces, showing how hard it is to control them.19
Presidents appeal to the armed forces to ensure their power, but the
result is a loss of power. Unlike in the recent past, the armed forces have
become one of the most important institutions in the region. They have
developed a direct relationship with society. As the Latinbarómetro sur-
vey shows, people trust militaries more than political institutions. The
armed forces have become a direct provider of a crucial public good
(security) with no mediation by any democratic agency, and their power
continues to grow.
dents. Richard Kohn might have been commenting on this state of af-
fairs when he warned in the Journal of Democracy back in 1997:
NOTES
The author wishes to thank Carina Solmirano and Silvio Waisbord for their invaluable
comments on this essay.
1. The classic scholarly work on the topic remains Samuel P. Huntington, The Soldier
and the State: The Theory and Practice of Civil-Military Relations (Cambridge: Harvard
University Press, 1957). Other influential books, particularly with regard to Latin Amer-
ica, include tomes by Felipe Agüero, David Pion-Berlin, J. Samuel Fitch, Wendy Hunter,
Richard Kohn, Narcis Serra, Alfred C. Stepan, and Harold Trinkunas.
2. For a sense of why public security is such a worry in Latin America, see the Homi-
cide Monitor maintained by the Brazil-based Igarapé Institute, available at http://homi-
cide.igarape.org.br.
3. Founded by Cuba and Venezuela in 2004 as the Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples
of Our America, ALBA currently consists of Antigua and Barbuda, Bolivia, Cuba, Domi-
nica, Ecuador, Grenada, Nicaragua, Saint Kitts and Nevis, Saint Lucia, Saint Vincent and
the Grenadines, and Venezuela.
4. For an account of one store takeover, carried out in the name of enforcing “fair”
prices, see Girish Gupta, “Venezuelan Military Seizes Major Retail Chain,” USA Today,
9 November 2013.
7. Adam Isacson, “Soldiers as Police,” Just the Facts, 12 May 2011, www.insight-
crime.org/news-briefs/soldiers-as-police-expanding-military-roles-in-latam; Luis Vil-
lalobos, “Enfoque institucional para la reforma policial y la rendición de cuentas,” Urvio,
Revista Latinoamericana de Seguridad Ciudadana, no. 2 (2007): 57–70; Lucía Dammert,
“Militarization of Public Security in Latin America: Where Are the Police?” in Monique
Greenwood Santos and Stephen J. Randall, eds., Latin American Security: Canadian and
International Perspectives, Calgary Papers in Military and Strategic Studies, Occasional
Paper Number No. 9, 2013, 115–31.
8. Marta Lagos and Lucía Dammert, “La Seguridad Ciudadana: El problema principal
de América Latina,” Corporación Latinobarómetro, 9 May 2012, www.latinobarometro.
org/documentos/LATBD_La_seguridad_ciudadana.pdf.
10. Human Rights Watch, “El rol de los altos mandos en falsos positivos: Evidencias
de responsabilidad de generales y coroneles del Ejército colombiano por ejecuciones de
civiles,” 23 June 2015, 1.
11. David Gagne, “Panamá gastó 7% del PIB en seguridad: ¿Dan las cuentas?” InSight
Crime, 17 December 2014.
12. U.S. Department of State, “2015 International Narcotics Control Strategy Report,”
INCSR 2015, vol. 1, “Drug and Chemical Control,” March 2015, 143.
13. Christopher Looft, “Organized Crime Is Top Priority of Ecuador Military: Correa,”
InSight Crime, 24 April 2012.
168 Journal of Democracy
14. “Primer operativo policial militar atendió 689 casos,” La Razón (Cochabamba),
18 March 2012.
15. Carlos Tapia, “Mayoría quiere que los militares salgan a combatir la inseguridad,”
El País (Montevideo), 16 June 2013.
16. Atlas Comparativo de la Defensa en América Latina y Caribe, Edición 2014 (Bue-
nos Aires: RESDAL, 2014), 79–83 and 92.
17. David Pion-Berlin and Harold Trinkunas, “Democratization, Social Crisis, and the
Impact of Military Domestic Roles in Latin America,” Journal of Political and Military
Sociology 33 (Summer 2005): 48; Jorge Battaglino, “Políticos y militares en los gobiernos
de la nueva izquierda sudamericana,” Política y gobierno 22, no. 1 (2015): 3–43.
19. Pedro Pablo Pe~naloza, “Colectivos armados actúan como policías, fiscales y juec-
es,” El Universal (Caracas), 23 February 2014.
21. Maolis Castro and Kejal Vyas, “Venezuela’s Food Shortages Trigger Long Lines,
Hunger, and Looting,” Wall Street Journal, 26 August 2015.
22. Francine Jácome, “El papel de la Fuerza Armada Nacional Bolivariana en el nuevo
contexto político venezolano: Implicaciones para la seguridad regional (2013),” Perspec-
tivas 5 (2014), http://library.fes.de/pdf-files/bueros/la-seguridad/10708.pdf.
24. “Bolivian Army Step in As Bakers Go on Strike,” BBC, 18 May 2015, www.bbc.
com/news/world-latin-america-32790223.
26. “Gobierno ecuatoriano realizó inversión histórica en Fuerzas Armadas en los últi-
mos 8 a~nos,” Andes (Quito), 27 January 2015.
27. “Ecuador President, Hostage of Mutinous Police Freed by Elite Army Forces,”
MercoPress, 1 October 2010, http://en.mercopress.com/2010/10/01/ecuador-president-
hostage-of-mutinous-police-freed-by-elite-army-forces.
30. Richard H. Kohn, “How Democracies Control the Military,” Journal of Democracy
8 (October 1997): 141.
32. Pion-Berlin and Trinkunas, “Democratization, Social Crisis and the Impact of
Military” 5–24; Battaglino, “Políticos y militares,” 3–43.