nd shape certain political actions. TodayÆs politician is primarily motivated by the desire to remain in office. Because of this, in certain instances it behooves politicians to challenge the military. We saw this when Bill Clinton challenged the military in the U.S. with new policies on homosexuals. However, Hunter maintains that military forces have their own agenda but refrain from using overt force due to negative publicity in todayÆs highly scrutinized political arena. As such, Hunter argues that each side chooses strategies dependent on the strategies chosen by the other. However, because the military is less reluctant to use heavy-handed tactics, Hunter argues politicians become ôless fearful of upsetting the military,ö (26). HunterÆs independent variable is the military and the dependent variable is the government. However, her rationalist approach does not explain how militaries manage to maintain so much control if politicians serve their own interests by challenging them.
Analyzing organizations as underlying Civil-Military relations in Latin America, Deborah NordenÆs structuralist approach to the problem uses the government as the independent variable and organizations (military, guerillas, etc.) as the dependent variable. Norden explains that the military is conventionally an organization that is very hierarchical in nature with strict rules of behavior and unified goals. However, because of structural weaknesses such as contact with groups in the external environment, militaries or parts of them can often be captured by small groups from within that are intent on staging a coup. This is exactly how Hugo Chavez came to power in Venezuela, even though he could not achieve ultimate power via the military. The military and government view for power in ways that are representative of the structural design of organizations like the military or military political movements. According to Norden, structural co...