As countries transition from military dictatorship to democracy, there is the question of what to do with criminal officials who ordered both torture and murder. While in a perfect world they would be put on trial and imprisoned, it is rarely that simple. Generally many officials retain their position in the military during the transition. This means they have the power to end the process of democracy whenever they feel threatened. Perhaps the best example of this is in Uruguay. When the population voted on a referendum asking whether crimes of the former military dictatorship should be prosecuted, there was a general fear that the military would take the government back. This was fueled by the military’s ambiguous answers as to whether or not they would comply with the referendum.<\/p>\n
Everyone can agree that former officials should be prosecuted for their former crimes. However, there are rarely systems that can handle this sort of pressure. Lawrence Weschler seems to struggle with this question throughout his book. He paints Uruguayan officials in a very negative light while also begrudgingly accepting what they have to say. Aiming for a democratic future is the best thing new officials can do to ensure the crimes of the past nothing happen again. Once a strong core is established, the question of punishment can be revisited when the threat to a democratic future disappears.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
As countries transition from military dictatorship to democracy, there is the question of what to do with criminal officials who ordered both torture and murder. While in a perfect world they would be put on trial and imprisoned, it is … Continue reading