In this post, Antonio Álvarez considers an enduring problem, the relationship between social justice and development in a country moving from dictatorship to democracy. This problem was pressing during the transitions in Latin America and the former Soviet bloc. It endures, as is evident here. The circumstances are always very specific, but the difficulties repeat themselves as is now dramatically evident in North Africa and the Middle East. A creative approach to the difficulties is considered here. -Jeff
Memory and development often seem to be in tension in Latin America. The left speaks of the need to remember the past, particularly the human rights abuses committed by dictatorships during the cold war; the right, on the other hand, is concerned that an obsession with memory will forestall economic growth. A few weeks ago, Gerardo Bleier published, via Facebook, a piece that made the old-guard of the Uruguayan left quite uncomfortable. In the post, he presented a strong and provocative argument concerning collective memory and economic development. A leftist in distinguished standing, Bleier argues that in order to achieve justice concerning human rights violations during the recent Uruguayan dictatorship, Uruguayans must focus on social and economic development. Development, he argues, ought to be seen as an instrument of justice. He has thus rejected the common sense positions of the left and the right and maps out a significant alternative.
Bleier has been a noted Uruguayan journalist since the 1980s. During the first government of the Frente Amplio (Broad Front, the left of center coalition), led by socialist Tabaré Vázquez (2005-2010), Bleier served as a high level consultant; and currently, he publishes weekly reflections about the vicissitudes encountered by the present Frente Amplio.
Importantly, he is the son of Eduardo Bleier, who was a high ranking cadre in the Communist Party. Without ever having held a gun, Eduardo was one of the many activists who disappeared, was tortured, and murdered during Uruguay’s “dirty war” of the 1960s and 1970s. He probably died the first week of July, 1976, though no one knows for sure. After being tortured in the most savage way, he was thrown into a small wooden box and buried alive. The family never saw his remains. It is rumored that he was buried in a clandestine cemetery located within an army compound assigned to Battalion 13 of the Infantry Division. At some point between October 1984 and March 1985, as democracy was being reestablished, Bleier’s body was unearthed and transferred to a different military compound. Later, his body was unearthed yet again, together with the bodies of several military officers. This time his remains were incinerated and thrown into the Río de la Plata, according to some versions, or into a nearby creek, according to others.
The son’s political judgment is of course shaped and informed by his father’s fate. In his recent post, Eduardo Bleier provided a personal and poignant reflection about the meaning of memory and justice in Uruguay. He writes:
It is obvious that this [growth] should not prevent us from weaving and reconstructing the collective memories pertaining to the civil war and to the terrorism that was perpetrated by the state. We cannot stop reminding ourselves of the scale of this state-sponsored terrorism, which many have tried to hide, and the systematic violation of human rights, which occurred during the dictatorship. We can’t stop trying to find avenues that would lead us to the missing truths. We can’t stop debunking the politics of silence and protection of criminals. Yet, these themes cannot occupy the central stage in Uruguayan politics, as Uruguayans essentially understand.
I agree with Bleier’s most provocative point: addressing the problems of the past should not distract us from the need for development. Uruguay has to address its problematic past, but it cannot be careless about issues of poverty and institutional life in the future. We have to remember, but we also have to develop. After all, Uruguay was, for 70 years, on the forefront of education, and yet today it experiences a grotesque decline of its educational system; a decline that coincides with a previous collapse of the economy and the subsequent process of polarization which led to 12 years of dictatorship.
Bleier also wrote this in his Facebook account:
[I]t is also true that the overwhelming majority of Uruguayans, particularly the youth, need a collective memory that is not marked by the traumas of the past, but by the challenges of the future.
His post generated strong responses, in favor and against, among readers who are mostly intellectuals and activists with bright futures. The debate took place just as the Administration of President José Mujica –a former militant of the guerrilla group Tupamaros— lost a battle, failing to pass legislation that would allow the judiciary to prosecute members of the military who, during the civil war, committed crimes against humanity. The legislation was designed to reverse the amnesty law that was approved in 1985, shortly after democracy was reestablished in Uruguay. This amnesty law had allowed for a peaceful transition from 12 years of military rule to a democratic form of governance. In essence, this law was a form of extortion, whereby the dictatorship protected its members from being judged for crimes against humanity.
Mujica’s predecesor, Tabaré Vázquez, had begun the legislative process intended to reopen cases of human rights violations that involved members of the dictatorship. As a result of Vázquez’ initiative, 28 police officers and members of the military who worked for the dictatorship have been jailed in a military detention center. Among them are lower-level functionaries, intelligence service operators, some police officers, a former Chancellor, Juan Carlos Blanco, and two former presidents, Juan Maria Bordaberry (under house arrest), and Lieutenant General Gregorio Alvarez.
Yet, of course, these people were not the only ones who were responsible for disappearances, torture and murders. According to the Freedom and Concord Forum (Foro Libertad y Concordia), an association that allegedly represents retired military, more than 400 military officers and soldiers are needed to serve as witnesses, in case Mujica’s government prosecutes the 88 members of the military whose cases have been pending. The spokesman of the association, retired Colonel Juan Perez de Azziz expects that dozens of these witnesses have a chance of ending up in jail themselves.
Today Uruguayans are confronted precisely with the question of whether or not to proceed with this amnesty law, of whether to focus on their past or to focus on their future.
After all these years, Gerardo Bleier knows that those responsible for his father’s torture and death are not just the politically alienated and the ultra-nationalist members of the military; the small cadre that operated during the cold war. He knows that political groups and people with economic interests also added fuel to the terror, people whose names can fill countless pages, even tomes that may never be part of our history. The government of the United States, to begin with, was the main facilitator of this crisis, having financed, since 1968, our Homeland Security Program, under which Uruguayan officers were trained by CIA operatives.
Ever since, many historical events have met their expiration date. And Bleier, the survivor, knows well that each passing day truth flees yet again. But he also knows that there will be no truth and no justice if Uruguay doesn’t consolidate its future. And he knows that this future and these truths will not be possible if we don’t take care today of our current, important, urgent demands: educate the young, address the problems of gross inequality, develop the economy. These are not tasks that turn away from remembering the past. They are preconditions for it.
Leave a Reply