Pion-Berlin (2001) argues that ôThe development, quality, and survival of democratic systems depend on governments making the armed forces their political servants and policy instruments rather than the other way around,ö (1). Civil-Military relations in Latin America are complex and fraught with conflict and violence. Paramilitary groups, leftist insurgent organizations, and other guerilla forces continue to undermine the sovereignty of a number of Latin American states. While Civil-Military relations in the region have improved over the past few decades, they are still highly unstable. Corruption and drug-trafficking have undermine governments and alleged democratic regimes in many Latin American nations, as men in uniform dictate government action and not elected officials. In discussing resolutions or approaches to Civil-Military relations in Latin America, the three analytical perspectives of rationalism, structuralism, and culturalism best act as a framework or paradigm for understanding. Hunter, Fitch, Norden, and Trinkunas offer theories on Civil-Military relations in Latin America from a variety of perspectives. Despite their viewpoints, Pion-Berlin (2001) argues that Latin American government leaders face three main challenges to regain control of the militaries in their respective nations:
Curb military influence while preserving or enhancing military professionalism.
Respond to the forces of globalization and market-oriented reform.
Better design and manage the missions assigned to the armed forces.
This research will now explore the viewpoints of different authors on Civil-Military relations in Latin American states.
Wendy Hunter uses a rationalist approach to Civil-Military relations in Latin America, though she does admit the contributions made by structuralist and culturalist literature. Hunter argues that rational choice theory adequately illustrates the powerful mechanism that both influence a...