Tipping the Civil-Military Balance

Abstract

Human rights issues topped the agenda for many democratic presidents who followed repressive military regimes in Latin America. Traditional approaches assume that the military is powerful enough to suppress human rights initiatives. Transitions approaches closely link success or failure to military power at the time of regime change. Evidence shows not only that there were instances of policy success but also that these are not fully explained by the transitional balance of power. The authors argue that policy outcomes are inextricably tied to levels of institutional concentration and autonomy in the executive branch. Human rights gains occur when policy-making authority is centered in a few hands and where the president can use institutional channels suitably closed to military influence. Low levels of concentration and autonomy result in policy setbacks; mixed levels lead to moderate success. The authors test the model with a comparative case study of governments in Argentina and Chile.