14 The disappearances: mass killing in Argentina
Historical (life) conditions
I 1930, the Argentine military overthrew the elected president. A long period of political and social instability followed. From then until 1976 only two presidents completed six-year terms; one was Juan Per6n, from 1946 to 1952. All other elected governments were deposed in military coups. There were
institutional crises, the establishment of irregular or de facto governments, an internal state of war, state of siege and Martial law, attempts at totalitarian or joint rule, changes in the organization of State powers, an abrupt increase in terrorist violence by the extreme left and the extreme right, as a means of armed conflict.1
Economic difficulties
The same years saw recurrent economic crises, large disparities in wealth, a decline in workers’ living standards after 1955, and substantial inflation in the years preceding the military takeover of 1976. Per6n was one of the leaders of a military coup in 1943 and became president in 1946. His rule ended with a military coup in 1955. Perón enacted legislation that aimed at social justice and the redistribution of income and he attempted to strengthen the national economy and “national bourgeoisie” (that is the middle class in contrast to the small ruling elite) through government subsides to national industries. At first, combined with increased demand for Argentine argicultural products, this improved economic conditions for large segments of the country.2 However, from the mid-1950s on, the Argentine economy was in a “continuing state of crises and stagnation.”3 Some believe that these economic problems resulted from Per6n’s actions. According to Ronald Dworkin he “created a cult of personality, particularly among workers, by lavish spending that exhausted the huge financial surplus Argentina amassed during the Second World War. He also created a police state, using informers and torturers... .Perón’s (1946-1955) administration prepared the way for the terror described in Nunca Mas.”a4
Early in the century, Argentines saw their country as cultured and powerful and having great promise, with substantial economic resources. At the end of the Second World War it seemed economically strong, but a precipitous decline followed. In 1945 it was fourth in the world in gold reserves; by 1964 it was twenty-eighth. Its per capita exports were sixth in the world in 1913, thirtieth in 1964; its per capita exports actually declined during that time.5 Rampaging inflation had reached 700 percent by 1976 under Isabel Perón. Economic output was not growing but diminishing.
Political conflict and violence
The division between Left and Right became deeper and deeper. Conflicts had long existed between the wealthy oligarchy and the military on the one hand (with the military itself divided) and the working classes and elements of the middle class on the other hand. The military was antagonistic to Per6n because he reduced its influence and offered too much to the working class and its unions. The military also blamed Per6n for economic decline and corruption.
Perhaps the most direct cause of Perón’s ouster was his conflict with the Catholic church, which had a high status in Argentina guaranteed by the constitution. Both president and vice-president had to be Catholic. Perón strongly attacked the church in response to its opposition to a youth movement created by him. The military and others with strong Catholic and nationalist ties or deep respect for tradition turned against Perón.6
After Per6n’s exile, the military excluded the powerful Peronist movement from the political process. This made it difficult for the remaining parties to rule effectively. Some of Per6n’s followers moved to the Left, proclaimed “armed struggle,” and began committing terrorist acts. Perón encouraged them from his exile in Spain.
For most of the postwar era, either the military ruled directly or military men were elected as presidents and ruled with military support. Repression and the exclusion of the people from the political process also contributed to instability. Heavy-handed intervention in the universities and repression under General Ongania (who took power in 1966) helped to radicalize youth.7
In the relatively brief intervals of genuine civilian rule, military plotting and the instability it generated continued. Crises ensued when the military disagreed with government policies. The inclinations and desires of the military had to be carefully considered by any government if it was to survive. Moreover, civilian political factions sought influence not through elections but by gaining the military’s favor. Civilian governments came to rely on the military to govern. For example, Arturo Frondizi, elected in 1958, the first nonmilitary president since 1943, used the military to put down strikes and had military courts pass sentences on workers who refused to return to their jobs.8
Supported by the extremes of both Left and Right, Perón came back to power in 1973. From exile he had encouraged leftist violence, but now, facing continued leftist terrorist activity, he sided with the Right and joined in the persecution of the Left. Argentina was in a state of virtual civil war. Leftists kidnapped and publicly executed high-ranking political and military leaders and attacked and bombed broadcasting stations and military posts.9 Extremists of the Right, including police and military personnel, formed death squads and killed leftists.
The difficult life conditions evoked the motivations that I have described as sources of destructiveness. People felt threatened physically and psychologically. The reaction of military men was especially strong, because their personal and group self-concept, role in society, world view, and ideology were intensely threatened by economic decline, political violence, and social disorganization.
Cultural preconditions
The role of the military in public life
Argentina gained independence in 1816. After that there were incessant wars among various caudillos (strongmen) in the interior, and until about 1870, fierce battles were fought between centralists, who advocated a
