Civilian Militarism: The rise of an Illiberal governance model

In Latin America, the political atmosphere has long been shaped by two opposing traditions: the civilist tradition and the militarist tradition. These paradigms have significantly influenced how countries in the region have responded to political and social challenges throughout their history.

At the turn of the new millennium, however, a hybrid and illiberal model has emerged: civilian militarism. Although often appealing to voters and supported by electoral legitimacy, this model poses serious risks to democracy. Civilian militarism refers to political leaders who, while coming to power through democratic means, begin to adopt practices typical of authoritarian and militarist regimes. This trend has become increasingly common not only in Latin America but also in other parts of the world, including the United States.

The civilist tradition is rooted in the promotion of democracy, the rule of law, and respect for democratic institutions as the foundation of governance and the social contract. Despite facing serious challenges over the years, this tradition has shown resilience and continues to represent a path toward stability and progress in Latin America and beyond. Civilism prioritizes citizen participation, free elections, the protection of human rights, and the professionalization and subordination of the armed forces.

A notable historical figure representing this tradition is Francisco de Paula Santander, a leader of independence in the Andes, best known for his phrase: “If weapons gave you independence, laws will give you freedom.” Santander understood that military victory against colonial rule had left behind an exalted sense of militarism that needed to be restrained. For real liberty and justice to prevail, it was essential to build a legal and democratic system that protected institutions, civil society, and the rule of law by placing limits on the power of arms.

In contrast, the militarist tradition in Latin America has been characterized by frequent military interventions in politics and the rise of authoritarian regimes led by generals or officers. Throughout the 20th century, several military leaders seized power, often justifying their actions with promises of restoring order, ensuring national security, or protecting economic stability. However, these regimes typically relied on the repression of political opposition, the erosion of civil liberties, and a general absence of transparency and accountability, using military power to support authoritarian institutions.

The tension between these two traditions has defined much of Latin America's political history. While civilists have fought to establish robust legal-democratic systems, militarists have often undermined these efforts, usually in the interest of powerful elites who claim to act in the name of the “common good.”

Over time, some countries in the region — including Uruguay, Costa Rica, and Argentina — have made notable progress in consolidating the civilist tradition. They have strengthened democracy and upheld the rule of law, often after experiencing brutal military regimes. Nonetheless, the legacy of these regimes continues to weigh heavily on many societies, hindering political development and social cohesion.

This long-standing tension has also shaped the international perception of Latin America. Military coups and political instability have contributed to a global image of fragility and unpredictability in the region's political systems. This perception has often discouraged foreign investment and limited economic exchange.

Today, the region stands at a critical crossroads. While many nations have made progress in democratic deepening, others remain trapped in political polarization and authoritarian tendencies. These tendencies are often masked by the rhetoric of strongman leadership. Leaders such as Nayib Bukele in El Salvador, Hugo Chávez in Venezuela, and Álvaro Uribe in Colombia have employed militaristic language and relied on military power and the domestic militarization of police forces. They justify these actions as necessary for building safer or more efficient states and societies.

This phenomenon, which I call civilian militarism, merges the legitimacy of democratic elections with the repressive tactics of militarism, leveraging the military’s reputation as a cornerstone to reinforce domestic control. It preserves the outward appearance of democracy while undermining institutions and claiming popular support. The consequences include weakened democratic structures, the involvement of the military in policing, increased militarization of public life, and frequent human rights violations.

Worryingly, this model is no longer limited to Latin America. A striking example is the United States under Donald Trump, whose administration demonstrated many features associated with civilian militarism. These included contempt for democratic norms, aggressive policing, the use of military symbolism, an authoritarian style of governance, the erosion of civil liberties, and the growing politicization of the military through purges and loyalty tests.

In the current global context, where democracy is in decline and many elected leaders propose “iron fist” solutions using messianic or militaristic rhetoric, Santander’s phrase remains especially relevant. It serves as a powerful reminder of the vital importance of the rule of law and the essential role of civil society in defending democratic processes and institutions.

Only by reaffirming the core values of civilism — justice, equality, citizen participation, and strong checks and balances — can societies resist the temptations of authoritarianism and build a more sustainable and democratic future.

Saul M. Rodriguez, Ph.D. (University of Ottawa), is a leading voice in comparative politics and international relations, specializing in political regimes, security, and military affairs. He frequently contributes to mass media. Former Editor-in-Chief of Magcondo, he now advises our Editorial Task Force. Author of two books and dozens of peer-reviewed works in Spanish and English, he combines academic depth with field experience in some of the world’s most challenging regions. His research has garnered numerous accolades from institutions across the globe.

Reference:

Rodriguez, Saul M. 2024. “Behind the Trigger: Democracy, Neoliberalism, and Civilian Militarism in Latin America.” Third World Quarterly 46 (1): 1–19.