Political (In)justice: Authoritarianism and the Rule of Law in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina

Abstract

Anthony Pereira, a political scientist at Tulane University, works here at the intersection of comparative history and political science. Based on archival research, 89 interviews, media coverage, and secondary sources, he examines the nature and dynamics of political justice under military rule in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. Pereira defines political justice as “the prosecution of the regimes’ opponents in courts of law for offenses against national security” (p. 18).Pereira straightforwardly summarizes his thesis: “The degree of military and judicial consensus, integration, and cooperation is a key neglected variable in unlocking the puzzle of variation in authoritarian legality” (p. 191). In Brazil, greater trust and cooperation led to more frequent use of the judicial system to deal with political opponents, more civilian participation in that process, and substantial acquittal rates. While torture of political prisoners occurred frequently, the death penalty was never applied to those convicted of political offenses. Extrajudicial executions were rare. Conversely, Pereira asserts that the level of military-judicial consensus in Argentina was lower at the time of the 1976 coup because the Peronist civilian government (elected in 1973) reversed the political-justice system established under the prior military regime by granting amnesty to those convicted under that system. After the 1976 coup, many Argentine officers resolved to handle their political opponents extrajudicially — leaving a grim legacy of 20 – 30,000 disappearances and summary executions. The Chilean experience constitutes a point between these poles; there, after an initial wave of extrajudicial arrests and executions, many political opponents were processed through a military justice system in which acquittal rates were low, trials were swift, and no appeals were permitted.Pereira’s account of how known and presumed political opponents were handled under these authoritarian regimes is convincing. His extensive archival research — complemented by interviews and other sources — creates a compelling and accessible comparative account of political justice during the last wave of military rule in South America. Pereira writes clearly, summarizes rich, comparative data in tables, and humanizes his narrative through anecdotes that illustrate the trends at issue.His argument regarding why things worked out as they did is not as comprehensive as his depiction of the actions taken. As can happen in research that looks at a problem through two distinct disciplinary lenses, readers from each discipline will be sensitive to different potential weaknesses. Although Pereira labels his explanation as grounded in historical institutionalism, the condensed narrative regarding events prior to these military regimes may not satisfy historians. Much emphasis is placed on the presence or absence of consensus within the military and between the military and the judiciary, yet this brief book spends little time depicting the division between hard-liners and soft-liners in Brazil and virtually no time describing analogous divisions in Chile and Argentina. For example, he does not relate the conflict between constitutionalist officers (azules) and hard-liners (colorados) in Argentina during the 1960s.In turn, readers approaching the book from a political-science perspective may be disappointed by the slim treatment of competing explanations. Pereira closes with a disclaimer noting that other factors — “such as ideology; ethnic, racial, gender, and class divisions; and broader legal cultures” — may help us to understand variation in authoritarian legality (p. 192). However, he does not expand each national case study to give these competing explanations a fair hearing. For example, I would suggest that differences in the perceived threat level (a factor that Pereira rejects with a few sentences here and there) and each military’s varying involvement in a spiral of violence also shaped decisions regarding political justice. Brazilian officers had faced comparatively minimal violence from opponents prior to the 1964 coup, Chilean soldiers had been inserted into increasingly tense situations in the years preceding the 1973 coup, and Argentine officers during the decade prior to the 1976 coup had been involved in considerable repression and had been prime targets of urban guerrillas. A 1980 U.S. State Department cable alleging that Argentine military officers were reluctant to sign sentences against the armed Left for fear of retaliation suggests the potential utility of these additional lines of explanation, but Pereira cites it simply as evidence of the military’s intransigence (pp. 129 – 30). Pereira’s main argument has merit, but other factors deserve further investigation in order to gauge more clearly the power of his thesis for understanding these countries’ experiences.Anthony Pereira has constructed an important account of how authoritarian regimes varied their approaches to political justice in Brazil, Chile, and Argentina. He extends his analysis through brief consideration of Germany under Hitler, Portugal under Salazar, and Spain under Franco. He also compares and contrasts U.S. approaches to national security following the events of September 11, 2001, to the patterns observed under these six authoritarian regimes. This readable book is useful for students and researchers trying to understand how governments can and do limit liberties in the name of security and freedom.