Reconstructing the institutional grand narrative (2007)

Yet the essence of a nation is that all individuals have many things in common, and also that they have forgotten many things.

(Renan 1990: 11) In the most recent discussions about how to deal with the role and responsibility

of the Armed Forces during the last dictatorship, there has been an important shift in the way the military construct their memory of the period. Many things are forgotten or resignified in this new grand narrative about the dictatorship. Under the current Left wing president, Tabaré Vázquez, the government has begun to change its policy towards the military and the questions regarding violations of human rights during the most recent dictatorship period. These changes in policy have produced several moments of tension between the government and the military, which have resulted in repeated modifications in the military commanding

structure. 1 These shifts of Commander in chief of the Armed Forces have brought to power younger generations, which were not directly involved in the dictatorship and are thus inheriting a problematic past that conflicts with their efforts to form a positive institutional identity. The inter-generational transmission of military memory results in modifications and adaptations of, the until now, dominant institutional narrative of the dictatorship period.

The focus of this chapter is on the commemoration speech by the Command- er in Chief of the Armed Forces, General Jorge Rosales, on May 18 2007, to cele- brate the origin of the military institution. This text and those produced in response to it serve as a window into how the military and civil society continue negotiating the meaning of the dictatorship period particularly in relation to violations of

1. The present Commander in Chief, Jorge Rosales, is only 52 years old and was promoted to General in 2006. His designation as commander in chief, as well as that of the previous Com-

mander in Chief, general Carlos Díaz, did not follow the traditional order used in previous years by which seniority was consider a key aspect in the decision. Gen. Rosales appointment skipped about 11–15 generals who were in line for the position due to their seniority. These changes in the way of assigning military officers for the position to command the institution seem to be a way of renovating the leadership of the force, since those officers skipped in the promotion have decided to request early retirement.

฀ What We Remember

human rights. The texts enact the most recent struggles over the dictatorship’s memory within and outside of the institution. The speech attempts to rewrite the past in order to construct a viable identity of the institution in the present socio- political context. However, the responses to this text show how hard it is to change the dominant or established ways of remembering the past.

Commemorations represent dates in which the past becomes present in public rituals that activate feelings while constructing and reconstructing memories of the past (Jelin 2002). This type of ritual establishes a rhythm and a historical trace that creates a path of remembering. Different social actors interpret and resignify events in relation to present political agendas and historical circumstances. For the military, these public ceremonies provide them with an opportunity to perform a ritual that celebrates their role as servants of the state. At the same time, during this type of event the military have access to a wider audience and communicate

their political position in authorized form. 2 The commemoration of the origin of the institution provides also a space to rewrite history and make sense of particular events to integrate them to the larger group narrative that serves to define its institutional identity.

This particular date of commemoration, May 18, 3 (origin of the military), is not one of the typically associated with the debate over how to come to terms with the traumatic past related to the dictatorship (e.g. April 14 or May 20th, cf. Marche-

si 2002). 4 However, as with the case of the emblematic commemorations of the past (e.g. April 14 and May 20), the commemoration of this date is part of the traditional government functions and is usually not marked by the absence of

2. The high discursive production in relation to the dictatorship period results in the trigger of political debates every time there is a public communication of issues related to the period. The Uruguayan constitution does not permit the military to voice any political opinions. Their

role is to serve the government in power and defend the nation without considering political ideologies. However, the institution typically makes public statements about political issues regarding this period through various social organizations, retired officers or during public ceremonies.

3. The commemoration of the date May 18, originally referred to the Battle of Las Piedras in 1811. This was the first victory of the independence revolution in the River Plate area.

4. April 14 is the date the military and some civilians commemorate the day of those fallen in defense of democratic institutions or in the fight against sedition. This date remembers the death of sub-chief of police Oscar Delega, agent Carlos Leites, captain Ernesto Moto Benvenuto, Ex sub-secretary of Interior Armando Acosta y Lara killed by the MLN-T guerrilla movement on a special operation on April 14th 1972. May 20th is the date commemorated by those against the dictatorship and human rights groups to remember senator Zelmar Michelini and representative Héctor Gutiérrez Ruiz and two members of the MLN-T, William Whitelaw and Rosario Barredo. They were killed in Buenos Aires, Argentina by the coordinated repression groups of the dictatorships of both countries on May 20th 1976.

Chapter 7. What is our story 

significant members of government. The commemoration being analyzed in this chapter, May 18th 2007, is unique because it occurred during a critical political moment in the debate over human rights abuses and the role of the military under

a leftist government. This commemoration was marked by the fact that the Minis- ter of Defense, Azucena Berruti, and the representative leading the Defense com- mittee in congress, Luis Rosadilla, did not participate in the act as was the usual practice in previous governments. This fact is significant if we consider that the Minister of Defense attended the celebration of May 20th associated with those who fought against the dictatorship and demand the resolution of human rights violation cases (see note 2). Also it is important to note that the newly appointed Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was replacing Gen. Díaz, who had been deposed for overstepping his role by carrying out political activities. In this particular context, the commemoration of the origins of the national military institution constituted more than a celebration of the past of the group, but also an opportunity for the government to signal the maintenance of law in society by displaying the subordination of the military to civilian authorities. For the military, the speech was a validated space for the institution to reaffirm its in-group identity and for self-justification in response to accusations of human rights violations. Public celebrations similar to this and their associated discussions highlight the fact that there are different memories of the past.

Even after more than 30 years since they left power, the military still maintain institutional resources to continue their commemorations (Jelin 2002). These le- gitimated spaces for commemoration give the institution an arena to participate in the political sphere in a constitutional way. This performance opens opportunities to establish political allegiances and reaffirm in-group identity.

The analysis of this particular discursive event, the commemoration of the day of the military, enables us to explore more in depth the ways in which the military maintain and adapt their narrative of the past as they negotiate political roles and construct their institutional identity. The analysis tries to answer the following questions: What image of the institution is being projected? How does the text construct an in-group identity and establish political allegiances? How is this text read/interpreted by other social actors? These questions will help us better docu- ment the changes in the military’s grand narrative and investigate how it is interpreted by other social actors.

Reconstructing the institutional grand narrative (2007)