From: Alejandro Dubrovsky (s328940@student.uq.edu.au)
Date: Mon Jul 23 2001 - 00:56:47 MDT
* CurtAdams@aol.com <CurtAdams@aol.com> [010723 14:25]:
> In a message dated 7/22/01 1:46:44 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> gonzalia@cs.chalmers.se writes:
>
> > I think the explanation is to be found in the political strength the
> > army accumulated during the 50 years that they kept taking over the
> > government once and again, every time they didn't like the way
> > the democratic governments were acting.
>
> I don't like that explanation; the army ruled a long time in Spain but
> quickly became quite well-behaved there.
>
> > In spite of the discredit,
> > they managed to leave government in 83 with a big part of that strenght
> > intact (the backing up of the local landlords and their oligopolies
> > never weakened, as for them all the killings were all right).
>
> Again, I'm not sure what's different between
> Argentina and a variety of other Latin countries.
> Would you say the difference is that in, say,
> Spain or Portugal the landlords and oligopolists
> no longer supported the old fascists? If so,
> what's different about Argentina? The guerilla
> suppression?
Interesting question. I would say in this case spain and portugal are the
exception rather than the rule, since the military did (and still does in some
places) keep its strength in Chile, Peru, Brasil, Paraguay, Bolivia, Ecuador and
Colombia, so it would be probably easier to find why spain and portugal are
different. btw, i do believe that the influence of the military in argentina has
decreased enormously since the 70s-80s. The huge cuts in military budget and the
abolition of conscription sound like evidence to me. the repressionary measures
nowadays are mostly dealt by the police, which has kept its power structure
mostly intact, especially outside of Buenos Aires.
Alejandro
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:09:02 MST