In lieu of an abstract, here is a brief excerpt of the content:

The Americas 59.2 (2002) 246-247



[Access article in PDF]
Civil-Military Relations in Latin America: New Analytical Perspectives. Edited by David Pion-Berlin. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2001. Pp. xiv, 303. Notes. Bibliography. Index. $55.00 cloth; $22.50 paper.

David Pion-Berlin, notes that Latin Americanist civil-military scholars face "double isolation" (p. 16). As Latin Americanists, comparative "generalists" in the social sciences charge that regional studies hinder the development of theory. Further isolation results from Latin Americanists who shun studies of the military because of their less than admirable role in governance, as if to do so would threaten personally held liberal values, or grant undue attention to an organization that will supposedly whither away as democratization marches onward. Of course, to not do so invites the very ignorance that one might argue contributed to military incursions in the first place. But this research community is not altogether blameless. Pion-Berlin notes that the insulation is partly self-imposed—there is comfort in the predictable exchange of ideas in a small research community.

Shunned by the outside, comfortable looking inward; the recipe for intellectual stagnation seems to be set. And this is precisely why this book is so important. Pion-Berlin sets the stage for engagement by noting that the three paradigmatic orientations within comparative politics (structural, rational, and cultural approaches) also distinguish research approaches within civil-military relations. The field of civil-military relations envelops a number of issues and concerns beyond intervention of direct relevance to contemporary Latin America, and the scholarship is more theoretically diverse and multidisciplinary than most realize. Scholars working within the "liberal peace" research agenda would benefit from a careful reading of David Mares's chapter. His pessimistic analysis of economic integration and its impact on democratic control of the military challenges the conventional wisdom, and refines the discussion by focusing on democratic control of the military rather than the unwieldy concept of democracy. After a reading of Brian Loveman's chapter, "The Historical Foundations of Civil-Military Relations in Spanish America," one wonders why more historians have not focused on the armed forces to understand the enduring influence of the past. Felipe Agüero's look to the more recent past in a discussion of how modes of transition influence democratization should serve as a reminder for democratic transition scholars to focus not only on the forward-looking ideals of democracy, but also on the legacies of authoritarian regimes, many of which were military in form. [End Page 246]

That the armed forces stand as one of the most insulated and disciplined groups in society should draw the attention of those interested in organizational dynamics. Samuel Fitch assesses military attitudes toward democracy in Ecuador and Argentina to illustrate how militaries, like other large scale organizations, develop distinct cultures. Fitch's more positive assessment of Argentina seems to be corroborated by the military restraint exhibited during the country's current economic crisis—a level of restraint not seen in Ecuador during its crisis in 2000. In another approach to the military as an organization, Deborah Norden traces the rise of Hugo Chávez's Movimiento Bolivariano Revolucionario in Venezuela from a military movement to an electoral force. Pulling from sociology, she notes how organizational strategies to dull military influence can create vulnerabilities to "capture" in the military hierarchy from relatively small groups within the institution.

Wendy Hunter addresses strategy from a unique perspective as she recognizes how electoral competition within Brazil led politicians to reduce military prerogatives. Interactions within the civilian arena (among presidents, legislators, and voters) thus have secondary effects on civil-military relations and, ultimately, civilian control. In "Crafting Civilian Control in Argentina and Venezuela," Harold Trinkunas defines the "jurisdictional boundaries" in the realm of civil-military relations, and thereby presents guidelines for the assessment of civilian control—a concept so important to the field, yet too often marked by tautology. As noted by Trinkunas, successful strategies to extend civilian jurisdiction embed themselves within institutions. The focus on institutions is taken up by Pion-Berlin, who charts policy...

pdf

Share