Yes, because they didn't see democracy as black or white. They considered democracy to be a spectrum between Peronism and full democracy. So they considered anything in between to be partial democracy, which as you can see has the word "democracy" in it.
Dictatorships in Latin America came in many flavors, but generally speaking, you're right.
They did not consider themselves to be "full democracy", but as they did not consider themselves to be Peronism, they saw themselves as partly democratic.
I know that makes no sense to you, but that was the fashionable political theory in Latin America floating around at the time.
In Chile and Brazil the authoritarian regimes were voted out, for example.
There were two different perceptions:
The military juntas knew those were not democracies, but in some cases - Brazil, Uruguay, Paraguay - they only ceased power because of their deep-seated fear of communism. Some of those
truly believed that the only way to avoid the Russian and Cuban influence would be by creating strong executives, because a lenient government would not be enough.
There are many episodes where the military acted as a moderating power, that is, rising to power to normalize a chaotic political situation, call elections and step down. In many cases this was quite a positive development because the military forces were the
only nation-wide force, particularly true in poor countries with isolated and impoverished areas, where no other political power could rise.
In the 60s and 70s, however, those who rose to power had access to the media, now widespread in those regions, so they could develop personality cults and propaganda. More importantly, there was Cuba in the backyard and the United States giving full support to military governments that would act as a police against communism. So they remained in power like never before.
The population also knew this was not a democracy, but they did not have access, at the time, to the full information regarding the excesses of the regime. More importantly, their support was bought with the fear factor - communists -, unprecedented economic development (GDP increased in average 10% a year in Brazil) or the existence of an enemy, like Argentina/Chile. So the dictatorship had positive support of many social classes.
The population bought some of the justifications for the dictatorships.
Elections? They could exist. But what for? The leftists would only bring chaos and start riots. Sometimes the most responsible thing is to act with prudence. Or they existed, but if a man is sent to Congress and he's a communist, the only decent thing to do is to expel him.
Torture? No evidence. Those who say they were tortured are being paid by Moscow to make the regime look bad.
Disappeared? No corpse, no evidence. Those leftists were joining guerillas, that's why they disappeared without a trace. Outrageous to suggest that the protectors of peace were killing people.
Censorship? We can't give voice to communists. Only people with loose morals, willing to cause confusion, would want to make absurd accusations against the junta.
There were rumors. But many chose not to believe it. The opposition could not raise a voice, and when it did, it was the distorted scream of radicals, who carried out bank robberies and kidnapping to advance their cause.
You and I may believe that one is either a democracy or not a democracy and there is no middle ground. But at the time, the idea was that there was a long road to democracy, particularly for Latin American countries who had known little but colonialism, neo-colonialism, socialism or a succession of dictatorships in which the democratic process was invariably swept away.
More importantly, what good did democracy do? To many people that was a legitimate question. Some countries alternated democratic periods with authoritarian ones, and they could not see much of a difference. Why not? Because in the absence of an educated middle-class, rare indeed in those impoverished countries, the vast majority were followers and voted in whoever they were told to. And nothing changed. So, considering the incredibly low educational level of voters, it did not make much of a difference whether they were living in a democracy or not. For the average worker, it did not interfere with his daily life.
The fact that they had many very very anti-democratic measures, such as restrictions on free speech, peacable assembly and other rights we associate with liberal democracy does not contradict their theory as they claimed to be on the beginning of a long road to "full democracy" and those rights would be introduced later.
Exactly. In the presence of fear, some civil rights could be left for later, for society's best interest. Well, tell that to a mother whose son was tortured for months and then thrown by helicopter into the river.
As I said, I think the theory was bunk (just as I think the theory of communism is bunk). But I also think that many who espoused it honestly believed (or hoped) it to be true.
In Brazil, this was certainly the case. From Day One the generals knew they would have to give up power, but that should only happen when Brazil was safe. They believed that so strongly that they elected between themselves presidents who would not want to perpetuate themselves in power. That was their major preoccupation at that time, and they succeeded in keeping the rotation of military presidents. In the 70s they allowed an opposition party, as long as it was moderate. They were pressured by public opinion to step down as soon as the "economic miracle" wore out (early eighties), earlier than what they expected, but there is now plenty of evidence that they saw their role as that of protectors. The military presidents died poor men, which is quite unusual when you think of dictatorships. As I said, they come in different flavors.
"I'll arrest and destroy those who oppose it"
President Figueiredo, explaining how he was going to lead the redemocratization process.
Precious.
