** Attributed to a Dominican army officer, commenting on the temporary detention of the Dominican Republic's chief opposition candidate for president in the 1974 elections, as quoted by El National (March 7, 1974).

** Attributed to a Dominican army officer, commenting on the temporary detention of the Dominican Republic's chief opposition candidate for president in the 1974 elections, as quoted by El National (March 7, 1974).

¹ More than half the members of the Central Committee of Cuba's Communist Party are army officers. See Gonzalez, Eduardo, “The New Role of the Revolutionary Armed Forces in Cuba,” paper presented at the Conference on the Latin American Military, University of California, Riverside, April 1970Google Scholar; Gonzalez, , “Political Succession in Cuba: After Fidel … ?” paper presented to the 1973 Annual Meeting of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, September 1973Google Scholar; and Dominguez, Jorge, “The Civil Soldier as a Governing Institution in Cuba,” paper presented at the 1973 meeting of the Inter-University Seminar on Armed Forces and Society, Chicago, October 1973Google Scholar.

² Late in 1961, Paraguay's was the only military government in all of South America. See Szulc, Tad, Twilight of the Tyrants (New York 1959)Google Scholar, and Lieuwen, Edwin, Arms and Politics in Latin America (New York 1961)Google Scholar, for the view that military participation in Latin American politics was declining.

³ See McAlister, Lyle, “Recent Research and Writing on the Role of the Military in Latin America,” Latin American Research Review, II (Fall 1966), 5–36Google Scholar.

⁴ Lieuwen (fn. 2), for instance, distinguished among three groups of countries: those in which the military dominated politics, those in which armies were in transition from political to non-political bodies, and those in which they were non-political. At least six of the seven cases in the supposedly transitional category, however, have since then moved in the direction contrary to Lieuwen's argument, and some of his “non-political” armies have taken an active political role. In any case, Lieuwen's three descriptive categories lacked explanatory power; little was said to indicate why particular countries fell into one category or another. Essentially similar criticism may be made of Wyckoff's, Theodore“The Role of the Military in Latin American Politics,” Western Political Quarterly, XIII (September 1960), 745–63Google Scholar.

⁵ They suggested that the military's institutional characteristics—its coherence and continuity, its technical orientation, its national perspective, and particularly its recruitment of officers from the upwardly mobile lower middle class—might dispose officers to support economic development, expanded participation, democratic procedures, and progressive redistribution. See Johnson, John, ed., The Role of the Military in Underdeveloped Countries (Princeton 1962)CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and The Military and Society in Latin America (Stanford 1964)Google Scholar.

⁶ See McAlister (fn. 3), 32–36.

⁷ See Hyman, Elizabeth, “Soldiers in Politics: New Insights on Latin American Armed Forces,” Political Science Quarterly, LXXXVII (September 1972), 401–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Ronfeldt, David, “Patterns of Civil-Military Rule,” in Einaudi, Luigi, ed., Beyond Cuba: Latin America Takes Charge of Its Future (New York 1974), 107–28Google Scholar. A comprehensive bibliography is provided by Lindenberg, Klaus, Fuerzas Armadas y Política en América Latina: Bibliografía Selecta (Santiago, Chile 1972)Google Scholar.

⁸ Among the major country studies published since 1966, other than those mentioned elsewhere in this article, are: on Argentina, Canton, Dario, La Política de los Militares Argentinos, 1900–1971 (Buenos Aires 1971)Google Scholar; Goldwert, Marvin, Democracy, Militarism and Nationalism in Argentina, 1930–1966: An Interpretation (Austin 1972)Google Scholar; Astiz, Carlos, “The Argentine Armed Forces: Their Role and Political Involvement,” Western Political Quarterly, XXII (December 1969), 862–78Google Scholar; O'Donnell, Guillermo, “Modernizatión y Golpes Militares: Teoría, Comparaciones, y el Caso Argentino,” Desarrollo Económico (October-December 1972), 519–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Beltrán, Virgilio Rafael, “The Army and Structural Changes in 20th Century Argentina,” in Van Doom, Jacques, ed., Military Profession and Military Regimes: Commitments and Conflicts (The Hague 1969), 317–41Google Scholar; on Bolivia, , Brill, William H., Military Intervention in Bolivia: The Overthrow of Paz Estenssoro and the MNR (ICOPS, Washington, D.C. 1967)Google Scholar; on Brazil, , Fiechter, Georges-André, Le Régime Modernisateur du Brésil, 1964–1972 (Geneva 1972)Google Scholar; Schneider, Ronald, The Political System of Brazil: Emergence of a “Modernizing” Authoritarian Regime, 1964–1970 (New York 1971)Google Scholar; Ames, Barry, “Rhetoric and Reality in a Militarized Regime: Brazil Since 1964,” Sage Professional Papers in Comparative Politics (Beverly Hills 1973)Google Scholar; Nunn, Frederick M., “Military Professionalism and Professional Militarism in Brazil, 1870–1970: Historical Perspectives and Political Implications,” Journal of Latin American Studies, IV, No. 1 (1972), 29–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Roett, Riordan, “A Praetorian Army in Politics: The Changing Role of the Brazilian Military” in Roett, , ed., Brazil in the Sixties (Nashville 1972), 3–50Google Scholar; on Chile, , Nunn, Frederick M., Chilean Politics, 1920–1931: The Honorable Mission of the Armed Forces (Albuquerque 1970)Google Scholar; Hansen, Roy A., “Military Culture and Organizational Decline: A Study of the Chilean Army,” Ph.D. diss. in sociology (University of California, Los Angeles 1967)Google Scholar; on Colombia, , Maullin, Richard, Soldiers, Guerrillas, and Politics in Colombia (Lexington, Mass. 1973)Google Scholar; Buitrago, Francisco Leal, “Politica e interventión militar en Colombia,” Revista Mexicana de Sociologia, XXXII, No. 3 (1970), 491–538CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Maingot, Anthony, “Colombia,” in McAlister, Lyle and others, The Military in Latin American Socio-political Evolution: Four Case Studies (Washington, D.C. 1970)Google Scholar; on the Dominican Republic, Lowenthal, Abraham, “The Political Role of the Dominican Armed Forces: A Note on the 1963 Overthrow of Bosch and the 1965 ‘Revolution’,” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, XV (August 1973), 355–62CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Ecuador, , Fitch, John S. III, “Toward a Model of Coups D'Etat as a Political Process in Latin America: Ecuador, 1948–1966,” Ph.D. diss. in political science (Yale University 1973)Google Scholar; on Guatemala, Adams, Richard, “The Development of the Military” in Adams, , ed., Crucifixion by Power: Essays on Guatemalan National Social Structure, 1944–1966 (Austin 1970), 238–77Google Scholar; Weaver, Jerry, “Political Style of the Guatemalan Military Elite,” Studies in Comparative International Development, V (1969–70), 63–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar; on Mexico, , Lozoya, Jorge Alberto, El ejército mexicano (1911–1965) (Mexico 1970)Google Scholar; on Panama, , Ropp, Steve, “Military Reformism in Panama: New Directions or Old Inclinations,” Caribbean Studies, XII (October 1972), 45–63Google Scholar; on Peru, , Astiz, Carlos and Garcia, José, “The Peruvian Military: Achievement Orientation, Training, and Political Tendencies,” Western Political Quarterly, XXV (December 1972), 667–85Google Scholar; Bourricaud, François, “Los militares: por qué y para qué?” Aportes (April 1970), 13–55Google Scholar; Bourricaud, , “Voluntarismo y experimentatión: los militares peruanos: manos a la obra,” Mundo Nuevo (December 1970), 4–16Google Scholar; Cotler, Julio, “Crisis política y populismo militar,” in Mar, José Matos and others, Peru: Hoy (Mexico 1971), 87–174Google Scholar, and “Bases del corporativismo en el Peru,” Sociedad y Política, No. 2 (November 1972), 3–11Google Scholar; Jaquette, Jane, “Revolution by Fiat: The Context of Policy-making in Peru,” Western Political Quarterly, XXV (December 1972), 648–66Google Scholar.

⁹ Cf. Luckham, Robin, The Nigerian Military: A Sociological Analysis of Authority and Revolt, 1960–67 (Cambridge 1971)Google Scholar.

¹⁰ In addition to previously cited works, see, for instance, Nun, José, “The Middle-Class Military Coup,” in Véliz, Claudio, ed., The Politics of Conformity in Latin America (Oxford 1967), 66–118Google Scholar; Cuellar, Oscar, “Notas sobre la participatión de los militares en América Latina,” Aportes (January 1971), 6–41Google Scholar; de Riz, Liliana, “Ejército y política en Uruguay,” Revista Latinoamericana de Sociologia, No. 3 (September-December 1970), 420–42Google Scholar; and Sepulveda, Alberto, “El Militarismo Desarrolista en América Latina,” Foro International, XIII (July-September 1972), 45–65Google Scholar.

¹¹ For further discussion of Villanueva, see Malloy, James M., “Dissecting the Peruvian Military,” Journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, XV (August 1973), 375–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹² Four additional comparative efforts deserve mention. McAlister and others (fn. 8), contains competent but not closely related studies of Peru, Argentina, Colombia, and Mexico, with a useful final attempt by McAlister to derive comparative generalizations. Tyson's, Brady “The Emerging Role of the Military as National Modernizers in Latin America: The Cases of Brazil and Peru,” in Pollock, David and Ritter, Arch, eds., Latin American Prospects for the 1970's: What Kind of Revolution? (New York 1973). 107–30Google Scholar, presents insightful but inconclusive speculation on the possibility that Peru's regime will eventually evolve in a direction similar to Brazil's. Malloy's, James“Populismo militar en el Peru y Bolivia: Antecedentes y posibilidades futuras,” Estudios Andinos, 11 (1971–72), 113–36Google Scholar, strains somewhat to fit limited data on the Peruvian regime's first three years into a framework Malloy had developed in his earlier work on Bolivia. Corbett's, CharlesThe Latin American Military as a Sociopolitical Force: Case Studies of Argentina and Bolivia (University of Miami, Center of Advanced International Studies 1972)Google Scholar, brings together two very unlikely objects of comparison, apparently chosen simply because the author (formerly a U.S. military attache) had first-hand familiarity with each.

¹³ See also Einaudi's, The Peruvian Military: A Summary Political Analysis (Rand, Santa Monica 1969)Google Scholar, “U.S. Relations with the Peruvian Military,” in Sharp, Daniel, ed., U.S. Foreign Policy and Peru (Austin 1972), 15–56Google Scholar, and “Revolution from Within —Military Rule in Peru Since 1968,” Studies in Comparative International Development, VIII (Spring 1973), 71–87Google Scholar.

¹⁴ Stepan begins to deal with these differences, albeit still somewhat sketchily and almost exclusively in terms of factors internal to the respective armies, in “The New Professionalism of Internal Warfare and Military Role Expansion,” in Stepan, , ed., Authoritarian Brazil: Origins, Policies, and Future (New Haven 1973), 47–68Google Scholar.

¹⁵ For knowledgeable skepticism regarding the degree to which the Mexican army has actually withdrawn from politics, see Ronfeldt, David, The Mexican Army and Political Order Since 1940 (RAND, Santa Monica 1973)Google Scholar; and Franklin Margiotta, “Changing Patterns of Political Influence: The Mexican Military and Politics,” paper presented at the 1973 Convention of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans.

¹⁶ Putnam, Robert D., “Toward Explaining Military Intervention in Latin American Politics,” World Politics, XX (October 1967), 83–110CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

¹⁷ Ibid., 89. The definition is paraphrased from Gilmore, Robert L., Caudillism and Militarism in Venezuela (Athens, Ohio 1964), 4–5Google Scholar.

¹⁸ See Tufte, Edward, “Improving Data Analysis in Political Science,” World Politics, XXI (July 1969), 654Google Scholar; and Weaver, Jerry L., “Assessing the Impact of Military Rule: Alternative Approaches,” in Schmitter, Philippe C., ed., Military Rule in Latin America: Functions, Consequences, and Perspectives (Beverly Hills 1973), 84–86, 96–98Google Scholar. I am indebted to John S. Fitch III and Jeffrey Hart for help on this point.

¹⁹ American Political Science Review, LX (September 1966), 616–26Google Scholar.

²⁰ Cf. Kossok, Manfred, “The Armed Forces in Latin America: Potential for Changes in Political and Social Functions,” journal of Inter-American Studies and World Affairs, XIV (November 1972), 375–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²¹ On the limitations of the “pressure group” concept for analyzing the political role of Latin American armies, see Hyma II (fn. 7), 410–11.

²² Cf. Decalo, Samuel, “Military Coups and Military Regimes in Africa,” Journal of Modern African Studies, II No. 1 (1973), 105–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²³ For an interpretation of the current Peruvian regime (generally regarded as eminently institutional), as deriving primarily from the dominance of one army faction, see Abraham F. Lowenthal, “Peru's ‘Revolutionary Government of the Armed Forces’: The First Five Years,” in Lowenthal, ed., Continuity and Change in Contemporary Peru (Princeton, forthcoming).

²⁴ Amos Perlmutter, in an article based primarily on Middle Eastern and Asian cases but explicitly generalized to Africa and Latin America as well, distinguishes between two subtypes of institutional military regimes: “arbitrator-types” and “ruler-types.” Arbitrator-types are only briefly direct, if at all; they are “professionally-oriented,” and are little interested in political ideology or organization. “Ruler-types” are more likely to be long-term and direct, to submerge professional considerations to others, and are much concerned about ideology and organization. But Perlmutter's observation about professional orientation does not appear to apply in the Latin American context (e.g., Peru and Brazil) unless one defines “professional orientation” as excluding long-term civilian responsibility, in which case Perlmutter's point is somewhat circular. See Perlmutter, , “The Praetorian State and the Praetorian Army: Toward a Taxonomy of Civil-Military Relations in Developing Polities,” Comparative Politics, I (April 1969), 382–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁵ Fitch shows that Ecuadorean officers come from socioeconomic origins very similar to those of their Peruvian colleagues, for instance. See Fitch (fn. 8), 248–49.

²⁶ This seems to have been the case, for instance, in the Dominican Republic and Bolivia. For another case where counterinsurgent activities have apparently stimulated military interest in structural reform, however, see Maullin (fn. 8).

²⁷ Huntington, Samuel P., Political Order in Changing Societies (New Haven 1968), 194Google Scholar. For an earlier, still useful formulation, see Germani, Gino and Silvert, Kalman, “Politics, Social Structure and Military Intervention in Latin America,” European Journal of Sociology, 11 (1961), 62–81CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

²⁸ See Nun (fn. 10), 112.

²⁹ Huntington (fn. 27), 222.

³⁰ Beltrán (fn. 8).

³¹ Fitch (fn. 8), 331–32.

³² The best recent literature on the political roles of African armies shares this emphasis. See, for instance, Claude E. Welch, “Radical and Conservative Military Regimes: A Typology and Analysis of Post-Coup Governments in Tropical Africa,” paper presented at the 1973 Convention of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans; and Bienen, Henry, “Military and Society in East Africa: Thinking Again about Praetorianism,” Comparative Politics, VI (July 1974), 489–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³³ O’Donnell (fn. 8), 32. (My translation.)

³⁴ The volume Schmitter has edited (fn. 18) contributes much less than its title promises on this point. Only Weaver's essay deals systematically with the effects of military rule.

³⁵ Schmitter's essay appears in Janowitz, Morris and Van Doom, Jacques, eds., On Military Intervention (Rotterdam 1971), 426–506Google Scholar. Cf. Nordlinger, Eric, “Soldiers in Mufti: The Impact of Military Rule Upon Economic and Social Change in the Non Western States,” American Political Science Review, LXIV (December 1970), 1131–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

³⁶ For a critique of Schmitter's methodology, see Barry Ames and Edward Goff, “A Longitudinal Approach to Latin American Public Expenditures,” paper presented at the 1973 Convention of the American Political Science Association, New Orleans, 9–11. See also Weaver (fn. 18), 93 ff.

³⁷ On military spending, however, cf. Heare, G. E., Latin American Military Expenditures, 1967–1971 (U.S. Department of State, Washington, D.C. 1973)Google Scholar for an argument that “[t]here is actually little direct correlation between military spending and the degree of military power in government.”

³⁸ Schmitter (fn. 35), 492–93.

³⁹ Ames (fn. 8).

⁴⁰ David Ronfeldt (fn. 7), points out, indeed, that the line between “civilian” and “military” regimes is often hazy, and that most Latin American countries are usually governed by civil-military coalitions.

⁴¹ Johnson's writings (fn. 5) were influenced by the then expanding literature on military participation in the politics of the Middle East and Asia, a literature which tended to exaggerate the progressive impact of military intervention, even in Asia, by inferring too much from the armies’ formal characteristics. See Price, Robert M., “A Theoretical Approach to Military Rule in New States: Reference-Group Theory and the Ghanian Case,” World Politics, XXIII (April 1971), 399–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar. By the 1970's, revisionist writers were generally skeptical about the supposed progressive impact of military participation, particularly in African politics. See Welch, Claude, ed., Soldier and State in Africa: A Comparative Analysis of Military Intervention and Political Change (Evanston, Ill. 1970)Google Scholar; and Bebler, Anton, Military Rule in Africa: Dahomey, Ghana, Sierra Leone, and Mali (New York 1973)Google Scholar.

⁴² See Welch (fn. 32), 2.

⁴³ Aside from the works previously cited, I have in mind particularly the books reviewed in Decalo (fn. 22), in Perlmutter, Amos, “The Arab Military Elite,” World Politics, XXII (January 1970), 269–300CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and in Zolberg, Aristide, “The Military Decade in Africa,” World Politics, XXV (January 1973), 309–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁴ For comparable formulations, see Luckham, A. R., “A Comparative Typology of Civil-Military Relations,” Government and Opposition, VI (Winter 1971), 5–36CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Claude Welch, Jr. and Smith, Arthur, Military Role and Rule (N. Scituate, Mass. 1974).Google Scholar

⁴⁵ See, for instance, the suggestive data discussed by Fitch (fn. 8), 106, 112.

⁴⁶ See Collier, David, “Timing of Economic Growth and Regime Characteristics in Latin America,” unpub. (Indiana University 1973).Google Scholar