Although studies of the military regimes that ruled the Southern Cone in the 1970s and early 1980s have begun to pour forth, few are comparative works, with the exception of those dealing with the breakdown and subsequent reemergence of democracy. Little has been produced examining whether the military regimes were as similar as they appeared on the surface.
Paul Drake tackles an aspect of this comparison. He studies how unions “suffer, subvert, and survive capitalist authoritarian regimes” (p. 1). He looks primarily at the military governments of Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay, which he calls atomizing regimes; by this he is referring to their free market labor policies. He contrasts the nature of their labor-state relations with four earlier corporatist examples of authoritarian regimes: Portugal, Spain, Greece, and Brazil, which served as models for the Southern Cone. Much more attention is paid to Brazil than to the other three.
Drake presents his material by first laying out clearly his points. Then he discusses, seriatim, his generalizations about the situation in the seven countries before and during the authoritarian regimes, takes up the case of each country separately, and generalizes about the impact of the authoritarian regimes on the reemergent democracies. The discussion focuses on labor and labor parties.
Labor was central to the authoritarian experience, Drake argues. Growing labor unrest helped create the conditions in which the military seized power. He stresses that not only did the military regimes make unions a primary target of repression, but even economic policies, such as liberalization, were intended, at least in part, to weaken labor. Despite this environment, unions played a critical role in organizing opposition to the regimes, though they ultimately yielded control to the political parties. In the wake of the restoration of democracy, Drake argues, unions were comparatively weaker in the Southern Cone countries than in countries with a more corporatist experience.
How successful are the comparisons? They do allow the reader to view the regimes in a larger context. Those regimes shared many features, and the importance of this cannot be overestimated. Unfortunately, as often happens in comparative studies, many unique features, along with the sense of human agency, are omitted. While Drake presents a very useful comparison between Brazil and its neighbors, he does not provide enough information on the other three corporatist examples to make meaningful comparisons. Chile and Brazil appear to be the basis for many of the generalizations.
Drake has written an important work, nevertheless. He underlines the crucial role of labor in the 1970s in the Southern Cone and shows the regimes’ similarities. All readers interested in this tragic period should read this book.
