Just 3 years ago we joyfully celebrated 40 uninterrupted years of democracy. Now we are summoned to a much darker anniversary: 50 years since the military coup of 1976the latest in a long history of interventions during the 20th century, in the democratic processes of Argentina.
The coup d’état led by Jorge Rafael Videla, Emilio Eduardo Massera and Orlando Ramón Agosti It had differential characteristics with respect to previous seizures of power. As the historian Gabriela Águila explains it well: “It was a dictatorship with singular features, particularly because of theace massive violations of human rights committed by the Armed and security forcesthrough a process of extermination that resorted to clandestine and legal practices, which widely used the disappearance of people, torture, the appropriation of minors born in captivity and countless common crimes.
Águila is a professor at the National University of Rosario, principal researcher at CONICET and is dedicated to studying this period of the Argentine past. He also wrote “History of the last military dictatorship” (21st century) a volume in which he covers all the instances of the government of the Armed Forces between 1976 and 1983: from illegal repression to its economic program, from civil support to the crisis with the Malvinas war.
Together with her we stopped at some particular issues in relation to the dictatorship: the new investigations into the military government, the moments of that period that resonate most in the present (such as Martínez de Hoz’s plan that is being discussed again today) and the traces of terror in the memory of Argentines.
News: What are the new data or changes in perspective that have been incorporated into the understanding of the dictatorship period in recent times?
Gabriela Águila: In the last 15 or 20 years there has been an important renewal of studies and interpretations about the dictatorship of 1976-1983, in the field of historiography and social sciences. We have more detailed studies about the functioning of the dictatorial regime and the civil and military actors that made up the government groups, not only at the highest levels of government but also at more micro levels, as well as regarding the objectives and strategies that were designed and implemented in the economic, political, social or cultural spheres. Analyzes on the actions and positions regarding the dictatorship and its policies by social movements have multiplied. (from the labor movement to the human rights movement), political parties and organizations, from right to left of the political-party spectrum, business corporations and intermediate associations. The violence carried out by the Armed Forces and security forces continues to be a central issue; investigations have expanded on the perpetrators of repression (the Armed Forces, the police), on the exercise of legal and clandestine repression at the local level, on the victims and the effects of violence in different temporalities. We have works on different regions, provinces and localities of the country, which have modified a very “porteño-centric” tendency when approaching national history.
News: How would you characterize the last dictatorship in relation to previous historical experiences of military governments?
Eagle: The dictatorship of 1976-1983 can be considered a watershed, a turning point in national history, first of all, because it was the last time that the Armed Forces intervened in national political life with a coup d’état. When that dictatorship ended, in December 1983, the Armed Forces had lost not only their political legitimacy but also the role they had played in the political-institutional system, closing the cycle of alternation between civilians and military that characterized the Argentine 20th century. But it is also a dictatorship that has unique features, due to its objectives, implemented strategies and results, particularly due to the massive violations of human rights committed by the Armed Forces. This repressive deployment was combined with other elements: the offensive against the workers and the popular sectors and their organizations, an economic policy that produced profound changes in the industrial productive structurein addition to affecting salaries and employment, the climate of authoritarianism, censorship and restrictions on citizen rights, resulting in a global process with unprecedented characteristics in national history due to its depth and breadth.
News: We know quite well the devastating scope of the repressive strategies of the dictatorship, but very little is said about what daily life meant in this context. How did ordinary people live with the latent threat posed by the government?
Eagle: This is an aspect that is difficult to reconstruct, because we only have traces of what happened in daily life, with the ordinary citizens who lived through the period, who generally left few traces of their experiences in the available documentary sources. The repression implemented by the Armed and security forces was broad but selective and was brutally directed towards certain groups and organizations that were linked to or defined as “subversive.” However, the entire society was affected by authoritarianism and restriction of citizen rights, by political proscriptions, repression of social and labor conflicts, and the disciplining of young people in the educational field. All of this eliminated or managed to discourage resistance and criticism, at least during the first years, and at the same time had decisive effects on social behavior, spreading fear and apathy. On the other hand, the Armed Forces and the military government carried out initiatives and calls aimed at society or some sectors (for example, young people) that included civic action tasks, psychological action operations, propaganda campaigns or the dissemination of information through different media, which sought to generate adherence to their policies and strategies. And other attitudes that expressed more or less open support or conformity towards the military government and some of its policies on the part of sectors of the population were not absent, as was particularly evident during the 1978 Soccer World Cup or in the context of the Malvinas War, in 1982.
News: In recent times, Martínez de Hoz’s economic program has been insistently remembered. How much did the failure of that program influence the end of the dictatorship?
Eagle: The economic policy designed by Martínez de Hoz It was based on radically transforming the current economic model with another focused on the unrestricted opening of the economy, the free market and the preeminence of the financial sector, for which it had broad support in national and international economic spheres. These policies had short, medium and long-term consequences and, among other aspects, severely affected employees and certain economic sectors – in particular, some branches of industry and other productive activities in the interior of the country -, which provoked complaints and criticism not only from union organizations, but also from political sectors and business corporations in agriculture and industry that positively valued other policies of the military government. The questions were raised early, already in the course of the first year of military government, and deepened as the effects of Martínez de Hoz’s plan on the socio-economic structure were felt. For their part, there were sectors within the Armed Forces and the military government that also raised criticism, showing that economic policy was an arena of disputes and tensions, which showed that the military government was not monolithic, but was crossed by conflicts and internal fractures. By the end of 1980 and beginning of 1981, when Martínez de Hoz left the economic portfolio, the indicators of crisis and deterioration of the economy were very evident and this element had a key importance in the increase in social and political conflict, in the questioning of the military government and in the demands for changes in economic policy and constitutional opening.
News: How did people’s support change throughout the Process after the important initial adhesion?
Eagle: I am interested in raising some nuances in the answer to this question. On the one hand, the coup d’état and the military government had a significant flow of social and political support and this was the dominant trend in the first years. The role that many business corporations had in the preparation of the coup is widely documented, which It also had the active participation of civil sectors from the Catholic nationalist right and liberal groups, business leaders and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.as well as received the accompaniment of the major media and the “waiting period” granted to him by the most important political parties. From a panoramic view, what can be seen in the first years is that the expressions of criticism and active resistance were very limited, which must be attributed in large part to the prevailing repression and terror. However, they existed and were carried out by minority groups that organized around the denunciation of the crimes committed by the Armed Forces and security forces and gave rise to the human rights movement. Around 1979, signs began to become visible that the consensus that had accompanied the coup d’état was eroding, especially after 1981, when a new phase of the dictatorship began with the assumption of General Viola. Then, questions about the government’s direction increased from various social, political and union sectors, which was greatly influenced by the deterioration of the economy. The increase in union conflicts and also in political-party activity with the emergence of the Multipartidaria in July 1981 (which showed that the majority parties had closed their expectations in negotiating with military power) account for the emergence of a new political and social climate. As is well known, questions about the military government increased after the defeat in the war against Great Britain in 1982, to acquire more explicit, active and organized modalities, which accompanied the transition towards elections and the end of the dictatorship.
News: What is the current trace of that time? How does the memory of those years continue to influence Argentines?
Eagle: The connections between the dictatorship and the Argentine present are more visible or evident in the plane of the legacies of a past of violence, authoritarianism and crimes against humanity. Likewise, and as I already mentioned, the medium or long-term effects of structural socioeconomic transformations and the consequences of authoritarianism and repression in Argentine society are part of the still visible traces of that historical period.
You may also be interested
Image gallery
