Thursday, January 30, 2020
Transition From Authoritian Rule In Argentina Essay Example for Free
Transition From Authoritian Rule In Argentina Essay The transition of governments between various systems of rule is an on-going and never-ending process. Every geopolitical entity in the world is under some form of government, be it barbarian or advanced, and no two governmental systems function in exactly the same way.  The system of government used in a certain area, territory or country is highly dependant upon the experience of those governed with the systems of governments in place in the past. Because of the unique occurrences in history, no two entities will experience periods of transition between various forms of government in exactly the same way. Even those countries that are geographically close and share similar histories will experience differing periods of transition. Although great differences exist, however, many similarities can also be drawn between nations that are seemingly worlds apart. After World War II, both Argentina and Brazil experienced periods of authoritarian rule. Both nations came under authoritarian rule and later evolved from authoritarian rule in differing manners. Therefore, through the practice of drawing contrasts and comparisons, it becomes apparent in what ways the current practice of democracy in Brazil and Argentina is different because of each country’s former experience with authoritarian rule. Introduction Although close geographically, Argentina and Brazil experienced vastly different evolutions in their form of governance in the period following World War II. Because the similarity in the governmental history of Argentina and Brazil lies in their shared experience of authoritarian rule, it is important, first, to understand the ramifications of that form of government. The Merriam-Webster online dictionary defines the term â€Å"authoritarian†by describing it as â€Å"of, relating to, or favoring a concentration of power in a leader or an elite not constitutionally responsible to the people†. (Merriam-Webster, 2007) To interpret this definition within the bounds of the research question at hand, it is important to draw out two portions of that definition. First, consider the phrase â€Å"concentration of power†. Unlike decentralized power that spreads rule amongst many, authoritarian rule places all power squarely upon the minority in power. Next, the key phrase most important in defining â€Å"authoritarian†is that the concentrated power is held by â€Å"a leader or an elite†. Again, this is the minority that holds a majority of the power. Finally, consider the phrase that authoritarian rule is â€Å"not constitutionally responsible to the people†. This could indicate that the government is not duly elected by the people through a constitutionally-defined format, or that once elected, there are no checks and balances by which a full accounting of activities can be demanded by the people. To further fully explore both similarities and differences in the affect of authoritarian rule on later rule, it is important to define the difference between democratization of a nation and liberalization of a nation, because both political processes affect populations in a vastly different manner. According to Wikipedia, democratization â€Å"is the transition from an authoritarian or a semi-authoritarian political system to a democratic political system†. (Wikipedia, 2007) In contrast, liberalization â€Å"refers to a relaxation of previous government restrictions, usually in areas of social or economic policy†. (Wikipedia, 2007) It is possible, therefore, for democratization and liberalization to work hand in hand as a geopolitical entity transitions its form of government away from authoritarian rule, but it is not necessarily true that one requires the other. For example, a country can simply relax its set governmental activities without actual changing its form of rule. Authors Guillermo ODonnell and Philippe C. Schmitter state in their work entitled â€Å"Transitions from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies†that â€Å"liberalization can exist without democratization†. (O’Donnell Schmitter, 10) But while liberalization does not necessarily need democratization, the authors go on to state that â€Å"in all experiences examined, the attainment of political democracy was preceded by a significant, if unsteady, liberalization†. (O’Donnell Schmitter, 10) Therefore, the true difference between liberalization and democratization must consider the influence one has upon the other. To understand the state of politics in South America today, one must first understand the basis from which it has evolved, and then its process for evolution. This paper will first examine the varying forms of governance in Argentina and Brazil prior to authoritarian rule. Next this paper will study how authoritarian rule came into being in Argentina and Brazil. Further, this paper will explore how authoritarian rule in Argentina and Brazil gave way to other forms of governance. And finally, the present-day political climate will be examined in both Argentina and Brazil, in light of the history from which both countries have evolved. Argentina vs. Brazil: Governance Prior to Authoritarian Rule            Argentina and Brazil became independent nations in 1816 and 1822 respectively. During this similar time period, Argentina separated from Spanish rule, while Brazil broke from the rule of the Portuguese. Both countries, according to the CIA World Factbook, were both heavily influenced by European powers, both at their period of separation and to the present day.  In South America, Brazil is the largest nation, and currently the most populous. Argentina’s political and societal history was largely shaped by Italian and Spanish immigrants that continued to stream in until the 1930s. (CIA World Factbook, 2007) The forms of government employed by Argentina and Brazil differed, however, after each nation was granted its independence and before the institution of authoritarian rule. Both nations separated from countries with forms of government far different than they, themselves, would adopt.            Author David Rock, in his work entitled Argentina in the Twentieth Century, explains that â€Å"the period between 1890 and 1930 in Argentina marked the rise to a position of national dominance of one of Argentinas leading political parties, the Unià ³n Cà vica Radical, or Radicalism†. (Rock, 66) Conservative rule in Argentina gave way to the rule of the Radical party in 1916, and it is that party that ruled until being overthrown in favor of an authoritarian government in 1930.  Rock states that â€Å"At one time it was thought simply that Radicalism was the political vehicle for the Argentine middle classes. However, more recently it has been shown that the partys origins are to be traced to a coalition between the middle classes and segments of the land-based elite†. (Rock, 67) A coalition between the middle classes thought to be the backbone of the Radical Party and the â€Å"land-based elite†is significant, because it was the â€Å"land-based elite†that were in rule as a conservative power both before the Radical party took control in 1916 and after it was overthrown in 1930.            Despite an apparent coalition between dissimilar factions, the CIA World Factbook reports that â€Å"up until about the mid-20th century, much of Argentinas history was dominated by periods of internal political conflict between Federalists and Unitarians and between civilian and military factions†. (CIA World Factbook, 2007) This conflict refers both to the transfers of power in 1916 and 1930 as well as the strife that continued in the intervening period of fourteen years. While the Radical party was in power, Argentina enjoyed a policy of free trade, allowing a strong exporting economy to develop and aiding in the financial development of the country. The tie between the middle-class bases and the â€Å"land-based elite†can be illustrated even in this policy of free trade, as Rock states that â€Å"this system was undermined by the inherent tendency of the primary export economy to concentrate economic power and opportunities narrowly in the hands of the landed groups and foreign capital†. (Rock, 68) Despite progress made in the advancement of the interests of Brazil during the period prior to 1930, the overall stability of the Radical party’s governance was shaky at best, and laid the ground work for transition to authoritarianism in 1930.            Brazil employed a more representative form of government earlier on than Argentina, when a republic was established in 1889. The republic of Brazil, formally named the Republic of the United States of Brazil by the constitution drafted and enacted in 1891, was lead by a constitutionally democratic government that employed a twist – unlike a traditional democracy, such as the United States, the original leaders during this period of time in Brazil were not elected popularly. Instead, power was seized during a coup d’etat and leaders were appointed. Wikipedia develops the important point that during this period of time, the government of Brazil decentralized and â€Å"restored autonomy to the provinces†. (Wikipedia, 2007) The major challenge to the ruling party of Brazil prior to 1930 was one of legitimacy: â€Å"how could an illegal, treasonous act (the coup d’etat) establish a legal political order?† (Wikipedia, 2007) Unlike in Argentina, where a disparity between the â€Å"land-based elite†and those without land led to the government’s eventual overthrow, Brazil’s future can be seen by the fact that the rise of the Republic also led to the strengthening of the state-sponsored Army – the same Army that would precipitate the turn to authoritarian rule in the 1930s.            Although a Republic, albeit with initial leaders installed instead of elected, future Brazilian elections did not enjoy the popular support of the people as was seen elsewhere, notably Argentina. As the road was traveled towards authoritarian rule, â€Å"throughout the 1920s, only between 2.3% and 3.4% of the total population voted.† (Wikipedia, 2007) Hardly, then, a representative government, Brazil continued to struggle with the question of the legitimacy of its republic. With that low participation recorded, any decisions made by the government feel to criticism and skepticism. Although this question of legitimacy would ultimately hurt the concept of a constitutional democracy during that period of time, the Army continued to strengthen with its power checked only nominally by the government and the people.            Argentina and Brazil share similarities and differences in their history prior to the 1930s. One notably similarity is the continued instability of government that ensued during the period prior to the transition to authoritarian rule. This is tempered, however, by differing causes for instability; notably dissention between the ruling party and the landed, in Argentina, and the ruling part and military factions, in Brazil. Like Argentina, Brazil enjoyed wealth through exportation during the period prior to 1930. Unlike Argentina, however, Brazil failed to account for the agricultural needs of its own countrymen before exportation, and thus was forced to import many products. These factors all lead to the laying of the path to authoritarianism.  Argentina vs. Brazil: How Authoritarian Governments Came into Power One of the leading exportation products of Brazil prior to 1930 was coffee. After the crash of the American stock market in 1929, the Great Depression experienced in North American had a trickle-down affect on the economies of South America. The prices paid for coffee, and thus the revenue gained from the exportation of coffee, was slashed by one third initially and later by two thirds. With such a gross decline in profitability, the exportation economy as a whole was affected. Any money held in reserve by the government to equalize pricing was tapped and emptied. And thus, the country of Brazil was ripe for revolution. (Wikipedia, 2007) Revolution came in 1930 when Getulio Dornelles Vargas came to power in a legitimate election gained through strategic alliances throughout Brazil. A non-bloody revolution, the changeover was simply one of ideologies. Vargas’ rule was to be one interim in nature – during his fifteen years in power, his rule gradually became less open and more repressive. Wikipedia characterizes this change in his pattern of rule as â€Å"‘a legal hybrid’ between the regimes of Mussolinis Italy and Salazars Portuguese Estado Nà ´vo, copied repressive fascist tactics, and conveyed their same rejection of liberal capitalism, but attained power baring few indications of his future quasi-fascist polices†. (Wikipedia, 2007} While in power, Vargas thoroughly rejected the values of Communism – they were in direct contrast with his support of the landed elite – and instead espoused the fascist notions that would help to lock in and retain the power he had grown as the leader of Brazil. The decentralization that had occurred in Brazil before 1930 was gradually eroded, laying open the path to authoritarian rule. The policies enacted by Vargas included the enactment of â€Å"one of the highest tariffs in the world and constructed a heavily regulated and increasingly centralized economy†. (Rock, 16) David Rock, in his work entitled Latin America in the 1940s, went on to outline that Brazil and nearby Argentina experienced changes in economies during the time of World War II, stating that â€Å"although they could no longer import capital goods and raw materials, the industrial producers of Argentina, Brazil, Chile, Mexico, and other countries managed to increase production†. (Rock, 18) As such, both Argentina and Brazil benefited by the demands of war. The turn to authoritarianism between the two countries would differ, however, in the way in which military regimes lead to the transfer of power. Philippe Faucher, in his work entitled â€Å"Authoritarian Capitalism: Brazils Contemporary Economic and Political Development†, states that â€Å"when the dictatorship first came to power [in Brazil] it appeared that it would follow the same course as other military dictatorships†. (Faucher, 11) This was not to be the case, however. Army strength built in Brazil for many years, both pre- and post-World War II. But it would not be until 1964 that a military power decisively came to power in Brazil, many years after the start of rumblings in 1930. In between, militaristic periods ensued, interspersed with periods of quasi-democratic rule. In 1964, Marshal Humberto de Alencar Castelo Branco, then Brazil’s Army Chief of Staff, came to power. He skillfully dealt with challenges to his power by making many changes to the government, including removing long-serving governors and representatives and adding power to the presidency. Although his intent was solely to limit challenges, he instead installed the groundwork for a military dictatorship. Wikipedia states that his measures â€Å"provided the successor governments of Marshal Artur da Costa e Silva (1967–69) and General Emà lio Garrastazu Mà ©dici (1969–74) with a basis for authoritarian rule†. (Wikipedia, 2007) Meanwhile, in Argentina, a coup d’etat was enacted, quite in contrast with the bloodless transitions of power in Brazil. Authors Benjamin Most and Lynne Rienner, in their work entitled â€Å"Changing Authoritarian Rule and Public Policy in Argentina, 1930-1970†, state that the military coup of 1930 â€Å"ended middle-class rule in Argentina and reestablished the political domination of Argentinas conservative, export-oriented landed elites and their allies among the export-related industrialists.† (Most Rienner, 46) While Brazil bounced between authoritarian and quasi-democratic rule for more than three decades, Argentina entered a period, in 1930, of different forms of authoritarian government. This period would last until the mid 1970s. It is important to look at the variety of forms of authoritarianism that prevailed in Argentina during this 40 year period, as it is indicative of the basic needs and desires of the Argentinean population during that time. Most and Rienner, outlining another work of Guillermo O’Donnell, delineate that Argentina experienced periods of traditional authoritarian rule, populist authoritarian rule, non-dominant rule, and bureaucratic-authoritarian rule. During those four periods, the dominant coalition was first export industrialists, then domestic industrialists, then non-dominant coalitions, and finally      more militaristic rule. Interestingly, Most and Rienner, quoting O’Donnell, show the beginning of more militaristic rule in 1966, coinciding with Brazil’s own turn towards militaristic rule. Although history shows the first strongly authoritarian rule in Brazil to have been military-affiliated, the comparison does not draw to Argentinean rule.  Instead, power couple Juan and Eva Peron, who would later be fictionalized and characterized in the stage and film productions of Evita, were the most noted rulers during authoritarian rule in Argentina. Most and Rienner state that the populist coalition – an authoritarian government that sought to identify with the masses – was â€Å"mobilized and dominated†by Juan Peron. Peron ruled until being overthrown by a militarily-influenced regime in 1955, shortly after terrible droughts affected the country and also shortly the death of his wife, Eva. One can almost hear the strains of â€Å"Don’t Cry for Me, Argentina†when contemplating the fate of that nation after the change in regime in 1955. Instead, the period from 1955 until 1966 proved to be almost without notably occurrence, as no strong leadership emerged. Although authoritarian rule lasted yet several decades longer, the instability begun in 1955 would begin the way out of authoritarian rule in Argentina. Similarly, continued instability in Brazil would lead to the same, albeit later than the emergence of Argentina from authoritarian rule. Argentina vs. Brazil: How Authoritarian Governments Gave Way to Other Governance            Powerful to varying extents in Argentina and Brazil, the time nevertheless came for authoritarian rule to end in both countries. Like their descent into and experience with authoritarian rule, Argentina and Brazil left behind the constraints of that form of government in varying manners and with varying levels of difficulty. Indeed, the most marked difference in the changes in rule in Argentina and Brazil is the steps and timelines followed by each in the 1970s and 1980s.            Authors Juan J. Linz and Alfred Stepan note the following in their work entitled â€Å"Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe†: â€Å"Brazil has experienced the most difficulty in consolidating democracy†. (Linz Stepan, 166) Linz and Stepan go on after that telling statement to breakdown a variables in Brazil that could have lead to its difficulty in transitioning, but arrive at the conclusion that those variables – including overwhelming debt and the affect of military rule – are not so significantly different than situations faced by other transitioning governments so as to set Brazil apart.  Instead, they arrive at a separate conclusion: that â€Å"the major distinctive problem in Brazil concerns our variable of the political economy of legitimacy†. (Linz Stepan, 166) As alluded to in the section dealing with Brazil’s governmental type dating to the beginning of the twentieth century, the largest stumbling block was one of legitimacy. Through regime after regime, leader after leader, Brazil continued to experience a strong enough, popularly backed official to bring an aura of legitimacy to its government.            A further stumbling block to Brazil in their quest to realize a democratic rule after the end of authoritarianism was the fact that historically, Brazil â€Å"had the least structured system of political parties†, in comparison to other South American countries studied. (Linz Stepan, 167) This lack of structure was clearly illustrated by the continual bouncing between authoritarian and non-authoritarian rule during the period following World War II. Because a coalition of any real strength failed to materialize to decisively lead Brazil out of the dark authoritarian rule and into the light of democracy, its transition period was prolonged. Finally, Linz and Stepan note that the constitution put into place in the late nineteenth century proved again to be inadequate in light of the caste-like society in Brazil, where the disparity between the classes was stark.            The question remains, then, as to how Brazil eventually did cast aside authoritarian rule in favor of democratization. The answer, it seems, resides in the differentiation of liberalization and democratization. Linz and Stepan note that â€Å"the Brazilian transition from authoritarianism began†¦[in] 1974†¦[and]was not completed until†¦1990†. (Linz Stepan, 167-168) Sixteen years of transition is demarcated by initial efforts made in 1974 by General Ernesto Geisel, who set out to institute â€Å"controlled liberalization†in order to aid the country in moving forward alongside South American neighbors then doing the same. Although liberalization was first introduced in the mid-1970s, democratization did not catch up for quite awhile. In the intervening years, many changes rocked Brazil, but a sign of true democratization was to come when in 1990, President Fernando Collor de Mello was directly and popularly elected by the people.            The movement of the people that made the direct and popular election of Mello possible in 1990 began in early 1984. As was characteristic of the entire Brazilian transition from authoritarian rule to democracy, the period of time necessary to enact change was lengthy. Linz and Stepan write that â€Å"from February to June 1984, Brazil experienced the most sustained and massive political movement in its history – the campaign for Directas Ja, or Direct Elections Now†. (Linz Stepan, 168)  Although significant portions of both the political and civil realms in Brazil were in favor of a change to a system of direct elections, and although, in fact, no major group voiced opposition to direct elections, the wheels of democratization turned slowly. The military regime then in place insisted upon exerting a final show of power, and thus the elections of 1985 – the first opportunity for a non-military government since 1964 – were still conducted by indirect vote. More political drama ensued when the elected president died before assuming office, and his vice-president served at the displeasure of many. Slow but not stopped, however, was the march towards full democracy, and so Mello was elected in 1990.            Linz and Stepan also spend significant time in analyzing the regime change from authoritarian rule to democracy in Argentina. One of the first similarities noted was that Argentina emerged from authoritarian rule, similarly to Brazil, by shedding the remains of military rule. While Brazil’s military rule uttered its dying gasp by blocking a direct election, Argentina saw a more-bloody grasp at remaining in power. Indeed, Linz and Stepan write that â€Å"while the overall regime lacked the coherence of ideology and organization of a totalitarian regime, many of the military’s statements about the need to exterminate their enemies had a totalitarian edge†. (Linz Stepan, 190)  In fact, more than â€Å"three hundred times more people per capita disappeared in Argentina than in Brazil†. (Linz Stepan, 190) While Brazil’s military may have created stumbling blocks, its leaders were at least working towards liberalization. In contrast, Argentina’s military rulers wanted no part in that initiative and sought to control power by eliminating the competition. A further contrast drawn by Linz and Stepan was that â€Å"the military never created parties or held elections as in Brazil†. (Linz Stepan, 190) Indeed, while the rule in Brazil was farsighted and thought out an eventual change in rule, the Argentinean model of military rule sought to hold tight to power for as long as possible without regard to the benefits that may be inherent in change.            Linz and Stepan outline five consequences of the fact that the military held so tightly to power, and in fact was able to stay in power for a full eighteen months after their defeat. First, the span of eighteen months between defeat and the secession of power meant â€Å"the possibility of revolutionary policies was precluded†. (Linz Stepan, 192) Second, although the military in its dying gasp held on to power far longer than anticipated, it was weakened by a fear of conflict caused internally. This fear was rightfully backed by practicality – for any hope of power to remain, any internal division would be deadly. Third, the continued show of power by the military was rebutted when the incoming regime prosecuted military officers vigorously for human rights violations. Fourth, the violence exhibited by the military against any adversaries tarnished any future hope of partnerships with the incoming democratic government. And finally, the prosecution of military officers almost led to an undoing of the democratic process, as uprising after uprising by other military officers drew President Raul Alfonsin’s attention away from other critical issues and forced concessions that reflected poorly on a newly-democratic government.            Although tenuous at the start, the turmoil experienced in both Brazil and Argentina was weathered by the democratic governments so longed for during authoritarian rule. Authors Stephan Haggard and Robert R. Kaufman offer insight as to why democratization was such an arduous process in Argentina and Brazil, saying that â€Å"in non-crisis circumstances, incumbent authoritarian leaders tend to enjoy greater leverage†. (Haggard Kaufman, 78) Obviously, the leverage for the authoritarian leaders in Argentina and Brazil suffered because crises did occur, including financial downfalls that caused the economies of both countries to suffer. But perhaps those crises were in fact beneficial, in providing the impetus necessary for regime change to occur. Argentina vs. Brazil: Today’s Political Climate            In present-day Brazil, the CIA World Factbook lists the type of government as federative republic. In fact, the formal name for the nation is the Federative Republic of Brazil. The current constitution was enacted in 1988 towards the end of rule by the last non-directly elected ruler. Interestingly, in a nation that once experienced dismal election turnout rates, voting is now required between the ages of 18 and 70, with the exception of military conscripts, who do not vote. Similarly to the United States, presidential elections are held now every four years. On the economic front, a country once plagued by enough debt to threaten a complete collapse of government is now growing at a rate of 2.2% per year. The Factbook quotes that while domestic and international economic shocks have affected the overall economy, the fact â€Å"that Brazil absorbed these shocks without financial collapse is a tribute to the resiliency of the Brazilian economy.† (CIA World Factbook, 2007) Each president elected since 1990 has introduced initiatives to further strengthen the economy.            To understand the full extent of where Brazil is politically today, one must first understand the type of government now in rule. The basic tenet of a federative republic is that the popularly elected president is both the head of state and head of government. The election of presidents and legislators is enabled by a multiparty system in a federative republic. In current-day Brazil, this multiparty system is exhibited by the fact that more than one dozen political parties are currently represented in the legislature, and the president and vice-president were elected from separate political parties. Although the legislative and executive branches of the government work closely together, the judiciary is set apart. In looking for a cause for this separation of the third wheel of government, it can be presumed that it is to ensure complete independence in the rulings handed down and that those rulings are not influenced by ruling members of the legislature or the president himself. After so many years of military rule interspersed with weak quasi-democratic rule, it can be easily seen that the setting apart of the judiciary is a stabilizing move.            The present-day government of Argentina has developed similarly to that of Brazil. In a slight departure, the CIA World Factbook lists Argentina as simply a republic instead of a federative republic. More practically stated, Argentina is currently a representative democracy. Unlike Brazil, the current constitution in Argentina was the one originally enacted in 1853; it has, however, been amended numerous times. In a very similar electoral process to Brazil, presidential and vice presidential candidates are elected to four year terms. Also similarly to Brazil, the president is both the head of state and head of government. A final similarity is that voting is also compulsory for anyone above the age of 18.            The roots of today’s Argentinean government can be more clearly seen in the history of Argentina than can be traced in Brazil. One of the two largest political parties in power today is the Radical Civic Union, which formerly ruled in Argentina from 1916-1930. The efforts of this party and the popular support among the masses have sustained its power throughout more than a century from its founding in 1890 and its cause of supporting and enhancing the well-being of the middle class remains relevant in the current political climate.  The other of the two largest political parties also has a clear historical tie. Called the Partido Justicialista, or Judicialist Party, the platform arose from the efforts of overthrown Juan Peron and his efforts â€Å"to expand the role of labor in the political process†during the 1940s. (Wikipedia, 2007) Once a country divided by vast differences in social classes, the two largest political parties now place utmost emphasis on the middle and working classes.            Brazil and Argentina both enjoy a bicameral legislature composed very similar to that of the House of Representatives and Senate of the United States of America. In Brazil, the legislature is called the Congresso Nacional, or National Congress. The two houses of legislature within are called the Senado Federal or Federal Senate, and the Camara dos Deputados or Chamber of Deputies. The members of the Senate serve eight year terms, with one-third elected during the first four year election and two-thirds elected during the second four year election. Three Senators are selected from each Federal district, totaling 81 altogether. The Chamber of Deputies are elected to four year terms and represent their Federal district proportionate to population, totaling 513 altogether. The vast number of political parties represented in the Brazilian government is a sure sign of the people that they want to ensure representation for all – representation that was missing during period of authoritarian rule in Brazil’s history. The Argentinean legislative branch is set up and named in the same way as Brazil, with slight variances occurring in the number of representatives and length of terms.. The Senate of Argentina boasts 72 representatives elected to six-year terms, with one-third up for election every other year. The Chamber of Deputies in Argentina counts 257 representatives who are elected to four year terms, with half up for election every other year.            The judiciary, as mentioned prior, is set apart in terms of rule from the other two bodies of government in Brazil. It is not quite so separate in Argentina. In both countries, members of the Supreme Court are appointed by the president for life and confirmed by the legislature. In Brazil, however, life ends at 70; at that age, judges are mandatorily retired. On key difference in the appointment of judges between Brazil and Argentina is that judges in Argentina can be deposed by the legislature; this is not the case in Brazil.            A lasting legacy in Argentina is the current role of the military in overall society. Having experienced gross tyranny under military rule for so many years and with bloodshed that affected such a wide population, there is understandable fear of an overly powerful military. Therefore, the military is â€Å"firmly under civilian control†. (Wikipedia, 2007) Once a force that completely disregarded human rights and sought only to maintain the largest extent of power possible, the Argentinean military is now a greatly downsized force with only volunteer soldiers. Conscription in the Argentinean military was abolished in 2001, further giving control to the civilian sector. The history of Brazil speaks more kindly to the rule of military forces, and as such, the influence of the military on the present-day democracy of Brazil is different from that experienced in Argentina. Conscription in the Brazilian military is still compulsory; males between the ages of 21 and 45 must serve a term of between nine and twelve months, but can volunteer for this service as young as 17. Women are also allowed and encouraged to serve in the armed forces of Brazil. At any given time, 33 million men and 38 million women are deemed fit for military service; only a small percentage of that actually serve at any given time. This figure is roughly five times the number of men and women in Argentina considered fit for service. Brazil also outspends Argentina in the upkeep of military forces by a ratio of two to one. This may change in the future, however, as the continually stabilizing economy of Argentina launched what is called â€Å"plan 2000†in 2005 to make its forces more prepared for any needs the country requires. (CIA World Factbook, 2007) Conclusion            By all appearances, the governments of Argentina and Brazil have successfully transitioned out of authoritarian rule and into democratic bodies. This transition, as illustrated by the many examples of this paper, has not come easily or quickly. Both nations experienced much strife in the twentieth century, which has carried on some levels into the twenty-first century. In the end, however, the power of the people prevailed in both countries, and democracy changed from a fleeting form of government experienced only sporadically in the past to a strong form of rule which has a secure future. The future of both Argentina and Brazil is not pre-determined, however, any more than the various forms of rule in the past was pre-determined. Instead, continued struggles will ensue as the democracies in place grow and age and are tested by circumstances yet unforeseen. In Brazil, the democracy is still only just over twenty years old, and only a few years older in Argentina. By comparison, when the democracy of the United States of America was just over thirty years old, a war was being fought with the former mother-land in the War of 1812; when the democracy of the United States of America was just under 100 years old, a civil war was fought that proved to be the toughest challenge to the future of democracy ever though possible. And yet the United States of American has prevailed with a democracy considered the strongest in the world. As the democracies of Brazil and Argentina age to thirty, forty, fifty and a hundred years old, challenges will arise to test legitimacy and strength of power. However, Brazil and Argentina took a far different path to democracy than did the United States of America. Because of the trials and turmoil already experienced through authoritarian rule, it is likely that the governments of Argentina and Brazil will be well-prepared to take on the challenges of the future. It is in looking forward that it becomes necessary to define one further term: that of foresight. Foresight can be defined as using the lessons of the past with the realities of the present to plan for the future. Both Brazil and Argentina are steeped in rich lessons of past forms of governmental rule; by remembering those histories and tempering them with current circumstances, the nations will be well-equipped to face the future. Those futures will likely continue on different paths, however, based again on lessons and examples of the past. Most importantly, the future of democracy, similarly to the current practice of democracy in Brazil and Argentina, will continue to differ because of each country’s former experience with authoritarian rule. References Argentina. (2007) CIA World Factbook Retrieved electronically April 7, 2007 from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html. Bruneau, T.C., Faucher, P. (Eds.). (1981). Authoritarian Capitalism: Brazil’s Contemporary Economic and Political Development. Boulder: Westview Press. Brazil. (2007). CIA World Factbook. Retrieved electronically April 7, 2007 from https://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/br.html. Democratization. (2007).Wikipedia. Retrieved electronically on April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ Democratization. Haggard, S. Kaufman, R. (1999). The Political Economy of Democratic Transitions. In â€Å"Transitions to Democracy†, ed. Lisa Anderson. New York: Columbia University Press. History of Brazil, 1889-1930. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved electronically on April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil_(1889-1930). History of Brazil, 1930-1945. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved electronically on April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil_(1830-1945). History of Brazil, 1945-1964. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved electronically on April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Brazil_(1945-1964). Liberalization. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved electronically on April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalization. Linz, J.J. Stepan, A. (1996). Problems of Democrative Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Merriam-Webster’s Online Dictionary. (2007). Retrieved electronically on April 7, 2007 from http://www.webster.com/dictionary/. Most, B. A. (1991). Changing Authoritarian Rule and Public Policy in Argentina, 1930-1970. Boulder: Lynne Rienner Publishers. O’Donnell, G. Schmitter, P.C. (1986). Transition from Authoritarian Rule: Tentative Conclusions about Uncertain Democracies. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press. Politics of Argentina. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved electronically April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_ Argentina. Politics of Brazil. (2007). Wikipedia. Retrieved electronically April 7, 2007 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics_of_Brazil. Rock, D. (Ed.). (1975). Argentina in the 20th Century. London: Gerald Duckworth Co. Ltd. Rock, D. (Ed.). (1994) Latin America in the 1940s: War and Postwar Transitions. Berkeley: University of California Press.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.