Latin America21: Armed Forces and political crisis in Latin America | Columnists | Opinion

By Gabriel Gaspar *

@Latinoamerica21

Nicaragua inaugurated in April 2018 a season of social outbursts in Latin America, which was followed by Ecuador (October 2019), Bolivia (November 2019), Colombia (a round in October 2019 and another in mid-2021), Chile (October 2019 and following months), and Peru (November 2020). Although these are mobilizations differentiated in origin, motives and volume, all of them unleashed acute political and governance crises.

In this scenario, it is worth highlighting the role that the Armed Forces have played, where, unlike in the past, they have chosen not to get involved in the contingency, nor to venture beyond the fulfillment of their constitutional role.

Are we in the presence of a new institutional doctrine? Has the Armed Forces taken a relatively common reading of your political forays in the recent past? Are they indifferent to the serious disturbances to public order that we have experienced in some countries?

It is difficult to answer these questions for two reasons: firstly, the Armed Forces are prudently silent in the face of contingency and secondly, they are processes that are in full swing.

A final warning: it is about analyzing the behavior of the Armed Forces and not of the police or other forces of order, such as Gendarmeries or National Guards. The Armed Forces are the main strategic instrument of a State, equipped and trained for defense, and should not be confused with the forces of order, much less speak of “the uniformed” to refer to these institutions interchangeably.

The maxims of recent history

Contemporary history seems to have taught the military world several lessons. Retired military personnel from various countries agree on an appreciation: when the Armed Forces have intervened in the situation of a country, they generally reestablish some kind of order, but often at high costs. They also know that once calm has returned, the so-called Truth Commissions are created, which generally end up prosecuting the High Command of the time and exempting the political leaders who ordered that intervention from responsibility. In the end, the prisoners are predominantly the military.

A lesson is being imposed: social and political problems are not resolved with force, it is the responsibility of the political level to open paths of understanding. Given that the regular channel establishes that the nexus between the Armed Forces and political power is through the ministries of Defense – or direct dialogue with the president – the definitive response to any inquiry will only be achieved when we have access to the declassification of those dialogues.

Prudence and moderation?

The primary mission of all Armed Forces is the defense of national sovereignty. Two others are usually added to it: participation in Peacekeeping Operations and assistance to the population in cases of natural disasters.

Maintaining public order is not the direct responsibility of the Armed Forces, it corresponds to the political authority that has the police forces for this. By the way, any deployment of the Armed Forces in the face of internal emergencies is enshrined in most constitutions in the so-called “states of exception”, which involves the temporary suspension of individual guarantees. This is only possible with the agreement of the legislature.

But recent events show that in many cases the presidential authority collides with the congress; There are even cases in which the same authority instructs the Armed Forces tasks that go beyond their mission.

What happens when the police forces are overwhelmed? In theory, the Executive should declare some type of state of exception, with the endorsement of the legislative power. And if he dont do it? Or if it does so without consulting the legislative or judicial power as the case may be? We have witnessed some cases, some of this has occurred.

Furthermore, the initial situation can be aggravated when the protest is degraded by elements of vandalism or by the threat of armed confrontations between civilians. Let us add that weapons are not in short supply in Latin America. In these circumstances, more than one official will have wondered how much destruction must be endured until the political power builds a solution.

If social and political problems cannot be solved with force and it is up to the political level to build the way out, the situation worsens when the authority wrongly diagnoses a crisis, as happened when the Chilean president, in the hectic spring of 2019, denounced that Chile was facing “a war”. According to a report from the portal Ex anteIn those hectic days, the Army would have planned to evacuate the President of La Moneda, to put him to safety. It transcends that the need to seek a political solution was suggested to him, and that would explain why the right wing in Chile agreed to the constitutional reform. The chronicle has not been denied.

In Ecuador, at the time of greatest instability during the protests in Quito, the then president, Lenín Moreno, had to take refuge in Guayaquil under military protection. For its part, in Bolivia, in November 2019 and in the midst of a serious social polarization where hundreds shouted “Now yes: Civil war!” and with a government that was crumbling, the Commander-in-Chief of the Army, General Kalimán, suggested to President Morales that he resign. Before, political and social organizations had done it. Hint or hit? This is being analyzed today by the Bolivian justice in the midst of complaints from the current opposition.

It is evident that in all these cases, although there has been violence and unfortunately numerous casualties, they have been basically due to the actions of the police or parapolice forces.

It is worth asking, then, if the Armed Forces have privileged the maintenance of order, but by inducing the political power to build a way out avoiding their direct participation. If so, we would be in the presence of a novel stabilization factor.

www.latinoamerica21.com is a plural medium committed to the dissemination of critical and truthful information about Latin America.

* Gabriel Gaspar is a political scientist. He has been a professor at the Institute of International Studies at the University of Chile, at the Andrés Bello Diplomatic Academy and at the UAM and UNAM (Mexico). Former undersecretary of war in the Chilean Ministry of Defense and former ambassador.

–