The Rise of Modern Militarism in Argentina
WXC HEP;N IN 1930 factions of the army overthrew the Radical regime of Hipolito Yrigoyen, the action marked the emergence of modern militarism in Argentina. Modern Argentine militarism is distinguished from previous military intervention in politics by the fact that since 1930 professional army officers rather than civilian politicians have exercised revolutionary leadership. Prior to that date the Argentine army or factions thereof had served as the necessary instruments of force in attempts by civilian political leaders to overthrow the constituted authorities.1 With the revolution of 1930 army officers began to initiate, plan, and lead military conspiracies. Furthermore, rebel army leaders now aspired to rule Argentina in the aftermath of military revolution. The revolution of 1930 is generally viewed as the event which launched Argentina on the tortuous path of modern militarism and chronic instability. There has been a tendency to neglect the important fact that the revolution was the culmination as well as the inauguration of a significant political process in Argentina. Modern militarism did not suddenly emerge like a new volcano on the Argentine political scene. It was the product of institutional and political trends which began many years before the revolution of 1930. The striking characteristic of modern Argentine militarism is that it evolved in one of the most highly professionalized armies in Latin America. For those who believe that military professionalization is an antidote to militarism, the Argentine case offers serious doubts. By professionalization is meant the formation of a technically trained army officer corps comprised of paid career men dedicated solely to professional matters. This objective necessitated the establishment of academies for advanced training in modern methods and weaponry alone with the adoption of objective criteria for promotion based on