How many military dictators have we had in the DR?

[Lambada]

An article on today's Strategy Page caught my eye:
Leadership: Lessons From A Century Of Army Building

'Iraq is not the first time the U.S. has helped a third world nation build a new army from scratch. It was done earlier in Nicaragua, Panama, Haiti, Dominican Republic, South Korea and the Philippines. All of these efforts resulted in more effective forces, and those nations acquired useful military traditions that persist to the present. But none of them became close of the U.S. military in capability. The problem was that all of them were heavily influenced by the local culture, and usually not for the better. All of the Latin American forces spent most of their time propping up military dictators'.

So..............how many military dictators have we had, precisely? See, I thought I knew the answer to this but having read this article..............

[Theforceinme]

Do you mean only the DR, or every Latin-American country?

In any case, I don't know, but would be interested in the answer! Thanks for the question!

[Mr. Lu]

Pedro Santana(1844-1848, 1853-1856, and 1858-1861), Ulises Heureaux(1883-1899), and Rafael Trujillo (1830-1961) were three of the DR's military dictators. All did a masterful job of modernizing the nation and distributing wealth among the proletariat (Insert sarcasm here). And Trujillo was the consummate example of a US trained puppet, but caused more havoc among his own people than expected. This was the case in post WWII US policy in the region, which preferred "stable" non communist governments to good leaders.





Mr. Lu

[catcherintherye]

I agree with Mr. Lu on all the points of his information, except for the years of Trujillo's years of dictatorship. That should read 1930-1961, 1830 - 1961 was obviously a typo.

[DominicanBilly]

Originally Posted by Mr. Lu

Pedro Santana(1844-1848, 1853-1856, and 1858-1861), Ulises Heureaux(1883-1899), and Rafael Trujillo (1830-1961) were three of the DR's military dictators. All did a masterful job of modernizing the nation and distributing wealth among the proletariat (Insert sarcasm here). And Trujillo was the consummate example of a US trained puppet, but caused more havoc among his own people than expected. This was the case in post WWII US policy in the region, which preferred "stable" non communist governments to good leaders.

Mr. Lu

I just finished reading "The Dominican Republic" A National History by Frank Moya Pons. From the Haitian Domination [1809 to 1843] through to April 25th 1965 when the Bosch followers organized to destroy the old Trujilloist army and President Johnson sent 42,000 troops to restore piece and save the country from the becoming a second Cuba. They have had a lot of military dictators both big and small over a period of 150 years.

Very interesting reading.

[Mr. Lu]

I find reading literature by Pons to be difficult. I have that book on my desk, but its a bulk of reading to get through. It is however neccessary.

Even so, as pertaining to the original question, I apologize for the typo, yet I don't understand the lack of continuous military dictatorships in the DR. Most of Latin America has had, arguably, a continuous line of military influenced or run regimes, so why didn't this continue in the DR?

The question is relevant considering that after the overthrow of Trujillo the DR's military was the strongest in the Caribbean. Also, Caamano was a strong military leader, as was Wessin (I believe), meaning they had troops at their disposals, so why didn't these guys lick their chops and take advantage and use the power they had in a time of polcitical and social turbulence?

Now, I am not advocating a military regime, just questioning why and how the country fell so "civily" into a non-military run nation.





Mr. Lu

[catcherintherye]

Mr. Lu asks a very interesting question, and I don't think there is one easy answer.

However, I'd like to offer a somewhat different take on what has been going on in the DR. I'd like to suggest that for significant periods of time between 1961 and present there has been de facto military rule in the DR, and that the facade of a democratically elected government has simply been the contrived window dressing used to placate public opinion.

If you consider the characteristics of a military dictatorship; the top-heavy heirarchy, political power centered in the military/police, the prevailant cronyism and clientism, and the wide-spread corruption, it would certainly appear that the DR displays many of those characteristics.

While the DR can not be described as a full-blown and blatant military dictatorship (something that the US would find embarassing), there is some evidence to suggest that the military holds on to much more real power, and moves more of the country's political agenda than is normal in a true democracy.

[Mr. Lu]

Though I understand the subtlety in Catcher's posts with, its tough to have a convergence of these two vastly differing concepts, i.e the military government and the civilian government. Though there are similarities, I doubt the military in the DR carries the weight it did 10, 20 or 30 years ago.

I believe there are 200 some odd generals in the DR, as compared to 6 or so in the US. What does this statistic reveal? That the military is just a product and a result of fat cat government bureaucracy and that it is not an independent arm, rather a sub servant and dependent entity.

I would argue that the hierarchy is not top heavy, rather very light (dual meaning) and the police here, both by the public and government who should fund it, view it as a joke. The military is just a bunch of guys in fatigues doing drug runs and immigration patrol. Even the guys who run the military are civilian minds in military suits. I would argue the DR is in no way militarized.

So in the end how do I revert back to my original question? In the 1960's military was strong. It had numbers, it had guns, and it had the anti-communist heal to lean on. The region was still influenced by military dictatorships so why didn't this trend continue in the DR? Why weren't there any domestic military coups attempts? Why haven't we seen a stronger voice from military now, as we see in other nations?



Mr. Lu

[Lambada]

Originally Posted by Theforceinme

Do you mean only the DR, or every Latin-American country?

No, just the DR to keep it DR1 focussed. Once we get to some of the other LA countries we get into 'one person's dictator is another person's freedom fighter'

That said, I don't know that we would all agree on the definition of a military dictator.

Originally Posted by Mr. Lu

Pedro Santana(1844-1848, 1853-1856, and 1858-1861), Ulises Heureaux(1883-1899), and Rafael Trujillo (1830-1961) were three of the DR's military dictators.

I'd certainly accept Trujillo was. Not so sure about Santana & Heureaux. Is there a difference between for example a career miltary person who becomes a dictator and someone who gets given a military title by act of law? Titles such as Admiral Christopher Columbus, General Juan Pablo Duarte, General Pedro Santana, General José Leger & General Imbert Barreras. And in terms of how these guys 'ruled' were there some qualitative differences between them & Trujillo?

Originally Posted by catcherintherye

However, I'd like to offer a somewhat different take on what has been going on in the DR. I'd like to suggest that for significant periods of time between 1961 and present there has been de facto military rule in the DR, and that the facade of a democratically elected government has simply been the contrived window dressing used to placate public opinion.

Maybe one could argue that the 'de facto' part wasn't purely since 1961? Maybe it wasn't even a big brother to the north invention either. Maybe the years following the Spanish Conquest had something to do with it? Maybe the Spaniards got miffed by Dominican tribal society when trying to rule it?

Originally Posted by Mr. Lu

The region was still influenced by military dictatorships so why didn't this trend continue in the DR? Why weren't there any domestic military coups attempts? Why haven't we seen a stronger voice from military now, as we see in other nations?

Maybe tribal society again? It makes not only 'democratic' governing difficult, but also military dictatorship? Maybe something about the Dominican psyche? The ambivalence displayed between reckless disregard for the law (or free-spirit nature ) alongside the placing of 'experts' (including military dictators) on a pedestal. It seems to be an ongoing tension in the DR.

Or could it be something to do with a sentence written in the original article? Written, I might say, with withering dismissiveness

Originally Posted by Lambada

'The problem was that all of them were heavily influenced by the local culture, and usually not for the better.'

Thought I might address the arrogance of that statement with Strategy Page if anyone thought it was a good idea to?

[MovingSoon]

Every leader/government is a dictator, the only difference is to what level they dictate compared to others.