Argentina and Chile: Socio Political Discrepancies

NB: We do not resell your papers. Upon ordering, we do an original paper exclusively for you.

NB: All your data is kept safe from the public.

Table of Contents

Chile case study
Argentina case study
Contrasting the Argentinean and Chilean military rules
Bibliography

Chile case study

For several decades now, the world has been closely following the development of Chilean politics, with a variance of opinion, not least of which has been a condemnation of the 1973 military coup. This is an important period for especially the Chileans; for it marked the start of the more than 30 years of military rule by the Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet. As such, a lot of outrage would be expected at the subsequent and persistent human rights abuse during the Pinochet military rule.

Another reason why the 1973 Chilean military coup is important historically is that it somewhat set a precedent in the South American region, whereby there was to follow a spate of military democratic breakdown in such countries as Argentina (1966 and later1976), Brazil (1964), Uruguay (1973) and Peru (1968) (Linz and Stepan 1978; Collier 1979; Foweraker, Landman, and Harvey 2003).

By and large, these authoritarian regimes were led by military juntas, who henceforth assumed the rule of their respective countries. In the case of Chile, however, the initial takeover by the junta pave the way for the ascension into power of Augusto Pinochet, thereby allowing for the establishment of a more personalized rule (Valenzuela and Constable 1991). In 1974, Pinochet consolidated his power following his declaration as to the president of the Chilean republic and later disseminated a new constitution in 1980.

During the entire regime of Pinochet in Chile, suspected subversives and dissidents were regularly exiled, tortured, and killed. This repressive pattern went on up to the early 1980s, a time that saw it being replaced by a ‘forceful intimidation strategy of the civil society. This was achieved via detention, torture, and arbitrary arrests (Foweraker and Landman 1997: 246-247).

By and large, the National Intelligence Directorate (DINA) was perceived to have been the chief perpetrator of these forms of violence. Following a sharp rise in social mobilization from a global scale, the Pinochet regime in the 1980s declared ‘a state of siege’, allowing it to utilize emergency powers as provided by the constitution of the 1980s, to enable it to defer political and civil rights guarantees. Human rights violations in Chile have widely been documented by the truth and reconciliation commission of Chile, whereby the commission has underreported the victims of the extra-judicial killing, and which the commission placed at 3,426 people. On the other hand, most of the human rights NGOs in Chile have reported higher values than this (Reiter, Zunzunequi, and Quiroga 1992: 116-124).

The arrest and the eventual detention in the United Kingdom of Pinochet might have set a vital precedent, at least from the perspective of international law, with regard to the liability of previous state heads, yet his later return into the country, coupled with a progression of impunity was seen by a majority of the human rights practitioners and scholars alike as being extremely unsatisfactory.

Thus far, Chile has served as a significant case study in the areas of not just comparative politics but also with regard to international relations, human rights, international law, and economics. Additionally, the case study of the military rule in Chile has been used to assess the foreign policy by the United States to the nations of Latin America. This also entails the Nixon administration’s communist policy, the Carter administration’s policy on human rights, as well as Reagan’s ‘democracy promotion policy.

The case of Chile is one of military rule, a breakdown in democracy, as well as the successful transition of democracy. In addition, it is also an example of ‘neo-liberal economic policies that have been implemented without success. Moreover, the Chilean political experience has served as a case study as far as truth and reconciliation politics are concerned.

After the rule of Pinochet, the Chilean case has been utilized for the study of ‘historical institutional analysis of presidential.’ In more ways than one, Chile has emerged as the “ultimate case study.”

1973 military coup in Chile

The 1973 military coup in Chile is thought of as a landmark not just in the annals of Chilean history but also in as far as the cold war in Latin America is concerned.. On 11^th September 1973, a military coup overthrew the then government that was headed by President Salvador Allende. This coup came about two months following another failed military takeover, dubbed Tanak putsch, as well as one month following condemnation of president Allende by the chamber of deputies after alleged speculation of constitutional breaches. As a result of the coup, this also led to the death of President Allende, although the real cause of death has been mired by disputes.

The United States and the 1973 military coup in Chile

The intervention of the united states into the internal politics of Chile and also the assistance of the opponents of President Allende’s right-wing (including also his assassination) have been filed in some 1998 unclassified files concerning the project FUBELT. The Soviet Union was seen as being sympathetic to president Allende. Nevertheless, they failed to assist him for the reason that he came out as a weak character, seeing that he did not utilize force when he was faced by an opposition (Roger 2003). Consequently, General Augusto Pinochet came into power once he had overthrown president, Allende. He was later to establish an “anti-communist military dictatorship,” whose rules spanned almost three decades.

The hostility with which the united states government viewed the socialist and elected government of Salvador Allende is validated in the declassified files during the administration of Clinton; entailing the CIA indicates that clandestine operatives found themselves placed in Chile, with a view to averting the rising of a Marxist government and the ensuing operation of propagandists, that was meant to propel president Eduardo Frei to campaign for “a military coup which would prevent Allende from taking office on 3^rd November.” (Roger 2003).

The then president of the united state, Richard Nixon, order the disposing of President Allende by the CIA, with the help of project FUBELT, once he had taken office. Furthermore, the direct American involvement in this coup has also been documented in Christopher Hitchen’s 2001 book, ‘The Trial of Henry Kissinger.’ Efforts by the United States to stop Allende from ascending into the presidential office are also well documented in the “1970 Chilean presidential election” entry (Roger 2003).

By assisting in the overthrowing of President Allende, the then United States president (Richard Nixon), along with his security advisor (Henry Kissinger) were out to send a very clear message to the countries in the Latin American region: that those regimes that were anti-revolutionary and utilized oppression, state terrorism even, could depend on the assistance of the United States (Roger 2003). The March 2006 election in Chile led to the ascension into power of the first female president and a socialist candidate, Michelle Bachelet. This Chilean election was extremely significant to the Chileans for several reasons, not least of which was a shift in the country’s political dynamism.

Contrasting Chilean and Argentinean political developments

If one were to compare the developments in a democracy between both Chile and Argentina, there is a need to take into account the peculiarities that come to play. For starters, there appears to be a variation with regard to the geopolitical bearings of both countries, and this is what is seen as having impacted their social-political development. In the past, Argentina has tended to promote ‘strong ties with Europe,’ while on the other hand, Chile has appeared to be more close to the united states, as a result of the large interest that Washington has shown in the copper industry in Chile, which also happens to be the largest copper producer in the world (Skidmore-Smith 2005: 48).

One might also opine that the ethnic and cultural differences between the two countries could also have played a part in the government institutions’ designs of the two countries. As a result of these diversities, we can observe that the political nature in Chile has been characterized by inclusiveness, while that of Argentina is more of exclusion ( ). For this reason, it comes as no surprise that the various dictatorial regimes in the two countries also supported divergent ideologies. Huntington (1991) opines that the regime in Chile could be viewed as a “personal dictatorship,” even as it appears to have emanated from a military coup that was orchestrated by Augusto Pinochet. On the other hand, Argentina was to remain as a dictatorship under a junta-led rule, until 1983 when the nation gained democratic rule (Huntington 1991: 136).

Argentina case study

The March 1976 military overthrow of the government in Argentina was meant to put calm to the ‘Peronist chaos,’ as well as top restructure from its very roots, the society in Argentina In this regard, the institutions and the society needed to undergo an overhaul. In the process, the military ended up contaminating both the civic and military organizations, administrative councils, and industrial councils.

This led to negative impacts that were unintended. The civic society became quite weakened, the damage to the economy was quite evident, while the military structure was ‘de-professionalized’ inevitably, culminating in the Falklands (Malvinas) War debacle (Skidmore-Smith: 99-101). By the time the dictatorial regime came to an end, Argentina was in an economic mess, what with the country running into high debts, coupled with a swelling crisis of the ‘import-substituting industrialization model.’ As a consequence of gross violations of human rights, the various social divisions in the nation had started to become obvious, and already, their trust fro the system was fast eroding. (Levitsky 2003: 245). In 1983 however, a full restoration of democracy ensued.

Dirty War

The Argentina Dirty War lasted from 1976 to 1983. This period marked a campaign of seven years by the Argentinean government, camping that was geared towards fighting subversives and dissidents. A majority of people, some of whom were innocent civilians and others were government critics were “disappeared in the middle of the night.” These people were then taken to detention centers of the government, maintained in secret places. Here, this individual, who is now referred to as “the disappeared,” would be first tortured, then later killed.

In 1974, following the death of Juan Peron, the controversial Argentinean president, the vice president Isabel Peron, who was also the late president’s wife, came into power. Nevertheless, she lacked enough political power, and this is how the military junta was able to orchestrate a military coup against her government, thereby leading to her removal from office. From then on, the military junta ruled Argentina with an iron fist, and they did not hesitate to crack down on those individuals who were seen as opposing their rules. To date, the war casualties at the hands of the military junta have been estimates at between 10,000 and 30,000.

Jorge Rafael Videla ascended into power as the 43^rd president of Argentina following a military takeover and ruled in the period between 1976 and 1981. This was after he had overthrown Isabel Martinez de Peron. When democracy in Argentina resumed, he became prosecuted for not just crimes against humanity but also the gross abuse of human rights that escalated under his tenure in office, and this included the ‘forced disappearances,’ extrajudicial murders, and massive tortures (Juan & Stepan 1997). He was effectively placed under house arrest and the on the 10^th of October 2008, stated his jail term in a military prison.

Almost throughout the entire existence of the military junta, they waged a fierce war against their sharp critics, notably the domestic subversives whom they suspected of being against their rule (Verbitsky 2005). As time went by, it was becoming clear to the world that the junta was responsible for the massive kidnappings, leading to stiff opposition to its rule on human rights grounds, coupled with increasing corruption allegations.

In a bid for the junta to dispel domestic criticism, they initiated a victorious campaign that was aimed at reclaiming the Falklands Islands. These islands have resulted in a contention between, on the one hand, their administrator, England, and Argentina on the other hand, which has been laying a claim to them ever since 1820. According to the junta, they were of the opinion that reclaiming these islands would be an easy task.

In addition, they also thought that the government of England would not be too concerned about their loss and also that the junta government stood a chance to mend its relationships with its citizens following a spate of unpopularity. However, the anticipations by the junta government did not go as they expected, as the British won the war 72 after Argentina had invaded the islands.

This loss, though unforeseen, proved to be the last straw as the military regime came to an end. By 1982, the junta had restored fundamental human rights as well as withdrawn the action of outlawing political parties (Juan & Stepan 1997). This war, dubbed the Dirty War, eventually came to an end following the assumption of power by the civilian government led by Raul Alfonsin. This was on the 10^th of December, 1983. There are notable citizens of Argentina who have borne the brunt of the military rule in the country as they seek to fight for democracy:

Jacob Timerman

Jacob Timerman is a writer as well as the author of ‘prison without as name, cell without a number,’ a 1981 book that later became a best seller. Through his journalistic skills, Timerman took issues with the military-ruled that had engulfed Argentina throughout the 1970s and onto the early 80s. As a result, the military junta had to shut down his newspaper in an attempt to silence him. He was later arrested in April 1977 and placed in custody without charges for some 30 months (O’Donnell 1999).

Jacob Timerman was only interrogated but also got tortured, not to mention being confined in isolation. As a sign of the prevalent human rights violations in Argentina at the time, Timerman had the international spotlight shone on him, leading to an international campaign that called for his release, and which also received the backing of the president of the then untied state, Jimmy Carter.

Eventually, in 1979, he was released from custody and later banished after his citizenship had been stripped off. He had to seek refuge in Israeli together with his family, only returning to Argentina after a full democracy had been restored in 1984 (O’Donnell 1999).

His 1981 book, ‘prison without as name, cell without a number’ could arguably be touted as one of the finest illustrations of the sufferings that civilians under totalitarian regimes have to endure.

Madres de plaza

The period between 1976 and 1983 saw a majority of the Argentineans seeking political refugees in exile, and these included distinguished and illustrious public personalities. These had to make a decision to leave the country for the safety of their lives. In the meantime, those Argentineans who chose to remain behind had to endure persecution and suffering in silence for fear of being kidnapped or murdered by the military junta. It is this silent and fearful environment that saw a coming to birth of ‘Madres de Plaza de Moyo’ (Mothers of Plaza de Mayo).

This is a small group of women that chose to defy the rules of the powers that be as a result of the love they had for their “disappeared” children. Even as their children continued being kidnapped, these mothers would not rest, and they would search all over for information that could lead to the whereabouts of their children (Weisman 1999). This included the military barracks, police departments, interior ministry, churches, the air force, and the navy.

This mother also made overseas trips to both disclose and share the dilemma that they faced; that of their “disappeared” children. For the period between 1978 and 1979, they traversed Europe and the United States. In these places, they sought fro support, in addition to requesting that these governments isolate the dictatorial government in Argentina (Weisman 1999).

Contrasting the Argentinean and Chilean military rules

Under the rule of President Alfonsin, Argentina as a country had to contend with an institutional system crisis, as well as bring back sanity to an economy that was literary, in disarray. Moreover, there was a frosty relationship between, on the one hand, the government and the military on the other hand. In the four years during which Alfonsin was president, Argentina observed a negative GDP growth. In addition, the country’s inflation was at 344p percent from 1984 to 1988.

The public service and government departments had to witness massive budget cuts. This was aimed at stabilizing the otherwise elevated foreign dent that the previous junta government had contracted (Waismann 1999: 98). The government terribly failed in its attempt at bringing economic reforms to the country, and this sought to quiet the political dialect that existed between the majority party and the opposition. This was bound to wane the government’s confidence in the eyes of the public, and this could have been a golden opportunity for the junta to seize back power by indicating to the public just how the government had failed.

To avoid this, the radical and the government of Alfonsin had no choice but to embrace an attitude of cooperation in as far as the Peronist opposition. Such a form of cooperation inclination in Argentina bears a similarity to that of Chile, only that Alfonsin had to deal with institutional dynamics problems, a majority of which were external to the system. Seeing that the democratic institutions had all but collapsed, the only option that the government could turn to was cooperation (Peruzzotti 2001: 150).

In contrast, the difficulties that Chilean president Selwyn faced were chiefly institutional and internal in nature. During the early 1990s, Chile was experiencing sound economic growth. The regime of Pinochet had succeeded in institutionalizing the structures of the system. Following the 1980 rewriting of the constitution, that embraced authoritarian elements that are a characteristic of tyranny. This leads to a strong executive power, one capable of conquering the military politicization, as well as total sovereignty of the same from other institutions (Siavelis 1994: 335-348, Valenzuela 1999: 232-33).

Bibliography

Huntington Samuel, 1991, The Third Wave: Democracy in the Late Twentieth Century, Norman and London: University of Oklaoma Press.

Juan and Stepan Alfred, 1997, “Toward Consolidating democracy”, in Larry Diamond, Marc Plattner and Yun-han Chu (eds) “Consolidating the Third Wave Democracies. Themes and Perspectives”, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

Levitsky Steven, 2003, “Argentina: From Crisis to Consolidation (and Back)” in Dominguez and Shifter (eds) Loveman Brian, 1986, “Military Dictatorship and Political Opposition in Chile 1973-1986”, in Journal of Interamerican Studies and World Affairs, Vol.28, n.4.

O’Donnell Guillermo, 1999, “Delegative Democracy” in “Counterpoints: Selected Essays on Authoritarianism and Democratization”, Indiana: University of Notre Dame Press Peruzzotti, E. “The nature of the New Argentine Democracy. The Delegative Democracy Argument Revisited”, in Journal of Latin American Studies, Vol.33, n.1 (2001).

Roger, Burbach, R, 2003, The Pinochet Affair: State Terrorism and Global Justice. Oxford: Zed Books, 2003.

Siavelis Peter M. 1997, “Executive-Legislative relations in post-Pinochet Chile: a preliminary assessment”, in Scott Mainwaring and Matthew S. Shugart, eds., Presidentialism and Democracy in Latin America, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press

Skidmore Thomas E. and Smith Peter H., 2005, Modern Latin America (6^th edition), New York: Oxford University Press.

Verbitsky, H, 2005, Confessions of An argentine Warrior. London: The New Press.

Valenzuela Arturo, 1999, “Chile: Origins and Consolidation of a Latin American Democracy”, in Larry Diamond, Jonathan Hartlyn, Juan Linz and Martin Lipset (eds), “Democracy in Developing Countries: Latin America”, Colorado: Boulder, London: L. Rienner Weisman Carlos, 1999, “Argentina: Capitalism and Democracy”. London: Wiley & Sons.

Click Here To Order Now!