Paraguay National Security
Francisco Solano López
IN MID-1988 THE ARMED FORCES continued to act as a major source
of support for the authoritarian regime of President Alfredo
Stroessner Mattiauda. Stroessner had used them, along with the
police and the ruling National Republican Association-Colorado
Party (Asociación Nacional Republicana-Partido Colorado), as the
primary instruments to maintain his regime since coming to power in
a coup d'état in 1954. Under the Constitution, the president is
designated the nation's commander in chief. Stroessner, himself a
general in the Paraguayan army, had chosen to fill this role
actively, retaining command authority over the defense forces and
involving himself personally in day-to-day decision making related
to them. Stroessner was able to keep the military under his
control, rather than vice versa, through his cultivation of ties of
personal loyalty, his direction of assignments and promotions, and
his reliance on a system of checks and balances within and among
the defense forces, the police, the Colorado Party, and elite
forces under his own control. Military members had also been given
a substantial stake in Stroessner's regime, which granted them
special privileges and power through salary, benefits, and
opportunities for patronage and graft.
Paraguay had a strong military tradition, and the nation took
great pride in its performance against Argentina in 1811, in the
1865-70 War of the Triple Alliance, and in the Chaco War of 1932-35
against Bolivia. The military tradition remained a valued one, even
though the country had faced little if any external threat since
the Chaco War. Instead, the armed forces under Stroessner were
chiefly occupied in preserving internal security and supporting the
regime. The military was also charged with guarding Paraguay's
borders and protecting against insurgency, which had been limited
to the 1959-64 period and was largely ineffective. In addition, the
armed forces devoted a large portion of their resources to civic
action and rural development. In keeping with the limited external
threat, the military was equipped mainly to meet public order and
internal security assignments. Reflecting the nation's troubled
economy and the obsence of significant threats, defense spending in
the 1980s had not kept up with inflation. Most military equipment
had thus grown more and more outdated.
For administrative purposes, the armed forces fell under the
purview of the Ministry of National Defense. Operational command of
the approximately 17,000-member military was held directly by the
president and exercised through the armed forces general staff. The
army was the largest and most influential of the three services. It
was equipped mainly as a light infantry force. Army officers,
usually retired from active service, held positions in other
branches of government and as managers of state-run economic,
social, and political organizations. The navy was a riverine force
that included a battalion of marines. The small air force flew
mainly transport planes and helicopters, but also had a small
number of counterinsurgency aircraft and a paratroop battalion.
The country enjoyed unprecedented internal security under
Stroessner, and conditions of public order could generally be
characterized as peaceful. This level of order came about, however,
largely as a result of the government's willingness to use whatever
means it deemed necessary to quell disorder and suppress dissent.
From 1954 until April 1987, the government ruled almost continually
under state-of-siege provisions. These provisions suspended in the
name of security civil rights guaranteed in the Constitution. The
government justified the extraordinary security measures as the
price of peace in a "democracy without communism," even though the
nation had not faced a credible communist threat since at least the
mid-1960s.
The government's harsh internal security measures ensured that
opposition to the regime remained muted throughout the 1970s and
early 1980s. A slight relaxation in the government's response to
domestic dissent, combined with the inspiration of Argentina's
return to civilian democratic rule in 1984, emboldened some members
of the opposition in the mid-1980s. Members of the press, the
political opposition, and labor groups, as well as students,
peasants, and representatives of the Roman Catholic Church, began
to express dissatisfaction with Paraguay's political system and the
economic hardship that followed the end of the construction of the
Itaipú hydroelectric project
(see Growth and Structure of the Economy
, ch. 3). In 1985 and increasingly in 1986, unprecedented
demonstrations were mounted in Asunción and elsewhere. Most of
these were peaceful until they were violently dispersed by police
and other security personnel. The lapse of the state of siege in
April 1987 was followed by a short interval of greater official
tolerance toward dissent. This tolerance ended abruptly in late
1987, however, when a faction of the Colorado Party describing
itself as militant, pro-Stroessner, and combative, took control of
the Colorado Party in late 1987. As of late 1988, the government's
return to harsh repression had not abated.
Criminal justice was the responsibility of the national
government. The national judiciary, headed by the five-member
Supreme Court of Justice, administered the country's criminal
courts. All penal and procedural statutes were issued by the
central government. Paraguay's police force was also a national
force, organized under the Ministry of Interior. Police were
divided into one force that served the capital area and another
that served the rest of the country in divisions assigned to each
of the nation's eighteen other departments. Public confidence in
the criminal justice system was undermined because, although the
judiciary was formally a coequal branch of government, in practice
it was clearly subordinate to the executive branch. Moreover, both
the judiciary and the police were widely viewed as susceptible to
political and economic influence.
Data as of December 1988
|