Civil-Military Relations in Latin America. New Analytical Perspectives

Pion-Berlin, David (ed.). Civil-Military Relations in Latin America. New Analytical Perspectives. Chapel Hill and London, The University of North Carolina Press, 2001. 303 pp.

This is a book that is certainly worthwhile reading for any scholar interested in the complex and timely issue of the relationship between military institutions and democracy. In the first place, it brings together a number of articles written by renowned specialists; in the second, it introduces an important issue to be reflected on: the need to make explicit and rethink the theoretical assumptions of the area. In this regard, the volume's editor, David Pion-Berlin, warns that the theoretical field dealt with in the anthology runs the risk of becoming overly self-referential, whether through facile acceptance of the boundaries of area studies (in this case, Latin America) or by refusing to broaden its theoretical assumptions in accordance with current developments in political science and in the social sciences in general. Furthermore, in his view, the area suffers from excessive empiricism. Lastly, Pion-Berlin advocates more theoretical integration for future studies.

The book's chapters are exemplary in their practical application and theoretical discussion of the three basic approaches that Pion-Berlin delineates: rational choice; structural analysis; and culturalist perspectives or, in a more simplified form, studies that focus on interests, institutions or ideas.

In this vein, Wendy Hunter reiterates her preference for the rational choice model, which appears in her studies of the "erosion" of military influence in Brazil. Samuel Fitch returns to the theme of the need to make theoretical assumptions explicit; he attributes the discrepancies found in the conclusions drawn by different authors regarding civil control-in studies of the same countries-to the fact that this provision has not been taken. Fitch also reminds us of the limitations of the notion of rational choice, proposing that it be complemented by the observation of changes in attitudes. Deborah Norden proposes an institutional perspective based on organizational and social movement theories. Pion-Berlin appears again in a text that defends the neo-institutionalist approach, dealing specifically with the relationship between the Ministry of Defense and other seats of power in the process of implementing civilian control of the Argentine military. Harold Trinkunas compares case studies of Argentina and Venezuela in order to test the importance of aligning opportunities analysis with that of actors' strategies and the role of institutions, while Felipe Agiiero looks at the founding conditions behind diverse transition processes in Latin America and Southern Europe, in order to examine the evolution of civilian control in those countries from an institutional point of view. Finally, David Mares proposes a rationalinstitutionalist view for examining the relationship between economic integration and democratic control in two areas of the region.

On the need to rethink theoretical assumptions, two chapters in this anthology are salient. On the one hand, Argentine author Ernesto Lopez has pertinently shown that the analytical schema proposed by Samuel Huntington-the patron of civil-military study-encounters obstacles when applied to Latin America, characterized by long periods of no civilian government, a high degree of military political autonomy, and military interventions carried out with total disregard for social responsibility. In his view, the theme of civilian control for the region must be thought through in other terms, not as a premise but as a goal, and coupled with the issue of the democratization of these societies. In turn, Brian Loveman, in a brilliant text on the authoritarian cultural heritage still in existence in Latin America, criticizes the limitations of the dominant studies in the area when he states that "neither history nor choice, neither institutions nor social culture, alone determine the changing configuration of civil-military relations." In his view, it is not enough to propose the theoretical opening of civilian-military studies; we must not let "academic trends or disciplinary dogmatism impede the accumulation and creation of knowledge" (p.270).

The anthology's call for a rethinking of paradigms could begin with a critical reading of the classical and fundamental text by Samuel Huntington, The Soldier and the State ( 1956). Historical distance now enables us to think of it as a product of its time, heavily marked by the Cold War, and to test its relevance to the United States itself. In fact, some of Huntington's prescriptions are not applicable even to the U.S. How can we possibly apply his portrait of an American secretary of Defense of the future, which he defines as aman "with breadth, wisdom, insight, and above all judgment," in addition to "patience and humility" (p. 455), to such figures as Robert McNamara and Donald Rumsfeld, to mention only two? In turn, if we agree that changes in institutions and mentalities occurring during the fifties strengthened the defense system with the objective civilian control that Huntington advocated, it would be useful to ask why a country with a "balanced system of civilmilitary relations" has produced cyclical bouts of militaristic politics that seem to put both the republican principles and the security of the American nation at risk.