CHAPTER 2
2.1 Definitions: Before we start to investigate this research, it becomes imperative to understand the prevailing literal, formal and informal definitions of the terminologies that this study concentrates upon.
2.1.1 Democracy: The literal definition of Democracy, as according to the Compact Oxford Dictionary, is,"1. a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2. a state governed in such a way. 3. Control of a group by the majority of its members." [1] But in the current context and ongoing trends, meaning of democracy cannot just be confined to these literal meanings. With the innovation of the democratic systems, evolution in its nature, characteristics, complexity and methods of practice has come a long way. What now may be perceived as dictatorship, were in fact considered democracy during the Prehistoric days when concept of democracy were just beginning to shape up.
Greek Democracies of the 6th and 7th centuries were more often than not direct in nature i.e. the people voted for or against any new rules and laws conceived. The Magna Carta signed in England in the 11th century between the king and the barons of the country influenced the democratic norms and traditions that are followed in democracies of today and can be regarded as a foundation for the modern democracy. Trends have changed. Many modern democracies now have representatives of the people elected by the people who are responsible for making and implementing the laws, rules and regulations- known as the Parliament. Democracy has also been perceived as accordingly to ones priority/perception by various individuals/groups. However, this thesis will not focus on perceptions, rather, derive conclusions.
2.1.2 Armed Forces: According to Microsoft Encarta's dictionary, the definition of the Armed Forces is explained as, "the combined bodies of troops of a country, who fight on land, at sea, or in the air" [2] Basically, the armed forces consists of only the Military, Navy and the Air Force whose primary role is to protect the Nation from external threats. In some countries, paramilitary forces like the Armed Police Force and the Border Security Force are also included within the Armed Forces. However, the Armed Forces does not include regular Police agencies i.e. the police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of a state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. This research has therefore totally excluded investigating the roles and other aspects of the policing forces and just deals with the study of the Military forces.
The great Military strategist Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War has stated "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected." [3] Since warfare could never have been neglected from the origins of the intelligent human beings, the primary participants of warfare, i.e. the Armed Forces have been in existence from primitive eras. In order to research the interrelation between the armed forces and democracy, it becomes necessary to possess brief knowledge of the origins of the armed forces.
2.1.3 The Army: History of the Army can be traced back to times when fighting occurred between primitive tribes and during ritualistic clashes. However, "The Army" of that era primarily participated in one on one encounters and did not possess the capacity of placing troops in the field or maintaining a standing Army. Some of the qualities were possessed by the foot soldiers of Mesopotamia around 2500 BC. Excavations have found out that these foot soldiers wore copper helmets and heavy protective cloaks and were armed with battleaxes. Use of Chariots and elements of tactics were used by the armed forces in Egypt during the 1400 BC (Hacker, 1997). These chariots proved a devastating weapons possessed by the Armed forces during the second millennium in Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece and China. Weaponries developed. Use of spears, bows and arrows amplified. The nomadic people specialized horse riding techniques and use of weaponries while riding. Cavalry was born and exists even till today's modern era. The Persian army has been credited for the first use of propaganda in warfare and creation of "units". Their "10,000" men army concept was divided into a Battalion each of 1,000 men.
Some sort of "Professional" Armies came into existence with the earliest states and underpinned the great empires of antiquity: Egypt, Babylon, and Assyria. The essential components of armies in early history were infantry, with some chariots, and cavalry. In ancient Greece the tendency towards greater professionalism reached its climax with the Macedonian army of Alexander the Great. From this time on, the development of siege techniques was an important part of military practice. The generals of Carthage, especially Hannibal hired mercenaries to great effect in their forces, but it was the armies of Rome, gradually evolving into fully professional standing forces, which dominated Europe from the 2nd century BC to the 5th century AD. Less organized but swiftly moving armies then came to the fore in the Dark Ages, from those of Attila, the Hun to the Mongols. In Europe in the Middle Ages the limitations of the heavily armored mounted knight were finally exposed by Swiss infantry armed with pikes or halberds [4] and English infantry armed with longbows. The use of mercenaries again became commonplace.
The major advances of the 15th and 16th centuries were the invention of gunpowder and the development of cannon. Organization, discipline, and further advances in weaponry led to the creation of highly efficient armies, most notably those of Frederick II (the Great) of Prussia. In the late 18th century, European armies were mainly of mercenaries recruited (often under pressure) and trained by a professional officer class. The first conscript armies were recruited in France to fight the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. During the 19th century most European countries adopted a system of conscription of young men to train and serve for about two years. (Britain enforced conscription from 1916 to1918 and again from 1939 to 1959.) European armies played an essential role in 19th and early 20th century Imperialism, their superior fire-power enabling them to dominate the peoples of Africa and Asia. The American Civil War (1861-65) saw large armies of the Union (the North) and the Confederacy (the South) engaged in a struggle in which railways were crucial for movement of troops, and new infantry weapons, such as the breech-loading rifle and the repeating carbine, were developed. By the time of the Franco Prussian War in 1870-71 heavy artillery was developing, but infantry and cavalry tactics remained little changed until World War I, when motor transport and heavier artillery developed. Even then, armies were slow to adapt to armored vehicles and the massed infantry attacks of its battles still used rifle, bayonet, and hand-grenade as their basic weapons, now pitched against machine guns. By World War II armies were fully motorized and tanks played a major part in the North African Campaign and at the Eastern Front. This mobility required large backup fuel and maintenance services. Basic infantry tactics still remained essential (even though the rifle was being replaced by the semiautomatic or automatic submachine gun), especially in the jungle warfare of the Burma Campaign. They remained so for later campaigns in Korea, Vietnam, and the Falklands. In the Cold War balance of power, large armies of NATO and the Warsaw Pact continued to face one another in Europe, armed with both conventional weapons and missiles. Allied victory in the Gulf War was achieved through massive tank deployment. Since the end of the Cold War the armies of UN member nations have increasingly been combined to form multinational peacekeeping and 'rapid reaction' forces.
2.1.4 The Navy: Navy began in the Mediterranean, with its access to three continents and favorable climatic conditions. Although the first recorded naval battle was fought in 1200 BC between the Egyptians and the Sea People [5] , ships were probably used to transport and supply armies much earlier. Ancient warships usually relied on ramming, although sometimes catapults were used to fire missiles or incendiaries and their crews fought as infantry. Galleys dominated the Mediterranean at least through the battle of Lepanto (1571) [6] between the Christians and Muslims. In China, junks (high-pooped ships with battened sails) were used as fighting platforms for sea battles and for invasion fleets, such as the Mongol attempt to take Japan in 1281. In northern Europe the Norse perfected oared Viking ships with square sails and strong keels that were used to transport raiders or for boarding at sea, but they could not ram or carry as many fighters as a galley. They were organized into small but effective fleets. It was to meet their attacks that Alfred the Great [7] , in the 9th century, organized a royal fleet and became the first to realize that a navy was essential to England's security.
The reigns of Henry VIII and Elizabeth saw further naval developments. Between the 13th and 16th centuries, the commercial trading vessels of Northern Europe evolved into effective warships, with rudders, keels, and complex sails. They soon became dominant around the world because of their increased maneuverability, their load-carrying capacity, and their suitability for carrying cannon. The Spanish and Portuguese navies dominated at different times until the destruction of the Spanish Armada (1588). From then on the British navy was the strongest in the world. Although challenged often, first by the Dutch and then the French, it ruled the seas for 300 years. British naval power rested not so much on numbers or superior ship construction, but on its professional seamen and officers. While Britain remained dominant, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the United States developed strong navies.
In the late 19th century, the emergence of Japan and Germany as major naval powers encouraged the United States to establish a strong navy. In 1898, the United States destroyed the Spanish fleet in the Spanish-American War and emerged as the second strongest sea power in the world. At this time, such modern naval weapons as the torpedo, the rifled naval gun, and the submarine were developed. World War I was partially a contest between the naval strengths of Britain and Germany, with the submarine the crucial factor. Germany lost its navy at the end of the war.
After World War I naval tactics were revolutionized by the development of the airplane. Previously, the decisive naval weapons had been the heavily gunned cruisers and battleships. In World War II, it became the aircraft carrier, as proven when U.S. carrier-based aircraft dominated the Pacific and did much to cripple German submarine strength in the Atlantic. At the end of World War II, Germany, Italy, and Japan were stripped of their navies, Britain was economically weakened and the United States emerged with the strongest navy in the world. By the early 1970s the USSR (now Russia) had the second most powerful navy; it was weakened, however, by the collapse of the USSR (1991) and Russia's subsequent economic difficulties. The development of nuclear-powered vessels, especially the submarine, together with nuclear weaponry, has altered the role of the navy in a nation's strategy and tactics.
2.1.5 The Air Force: The history of aerial warfare is a relatively new branch of military history. Hot air balloons were introduced as observation platforms in the late 18th Century. They were not widely used until the mid-19th Century. True aerial warfare - i.e. offensive air combat operations - is a mere century old. Air warfare did not become important until World War I (1914-18). The British, French, German, Russian and Italian armed forces had flying units, including biplanes armed with machine guns for "dogfights" with enemy fighter aircraft. Zeppelins and larger airplanes carried out bombing raids. The 1920s and '30s saw the development of the monoplane, the all-metal fuselage and the aircraft carrier. During World War II (1939-45), the Battle of Britain [8] was the first fought exclusively in the air, the Battle of the Coral Sea [9] was the first between carrier-based aircraft, and the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki were the first use of nuclear-armed bombers. In the jet age, air power has continued to be used in strategic bombing of an enemy's home territory (as in the Vietnam War, 1965-74), destroying enemy air forces (as in the Arab-Israeli wars), attacking and defending carrier-based naval fleets (as in the Falkland Islands War, 1982), and supporting ground forces (as in the Persian Gulf War, 1990-91).
2.1.6 Historically, the creation of armed forces (army, to be precise) [10] was initiated by the "strong one" possessing leadership qualities (who later became rulers) for the main cause of maximizing his power and territory (which later led to the creation of Nations). Most of these rulers, with strong support from the Military, ruled the Nation unilaterally, most often, even tyrannically. These historical close relations between the armed forces and tyrants have to great context contributed in escalating the belief of armed forces opposing democracy. However, it should also be kept in mind that tyrants and dictator of the ancient periods did not carry the negative connotation that these terms carry in the modern era. In ancient Greece and Rome, a dictator or tyrant was a ruler who necessarily may not be harsh and cruel who placed his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant/dictator governed or controlled. The Constructive and adverse interrelations between Democracy and the Armed Forces in various epochs of world History will be elaborately studied in the third chapter.
Various Methods and Practices of Democracy:
Various researchers and scholars have classified democracy accordingly. However, orthodox political science has classified democracy into two main branches namely Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy. As the name suggests, the main differences between these two democracies are the procedures by which the Government is run by the people. Modern Political Scientists tend to further categorize Democracy into Delegative Democracy /Semi Direct Democracy.
Direct Democracy: Direct democracy is considered by many to be the purest form of democracy and is also popularly known as "pure" democracy. This form of democracy, as the name suggest, follows the procedures in which democracy is directly practiced by the people. The role of citizens in drafting, approving and authorizing rules and laws of the country is optimum. The extent of their participation becomes vital. Direct Democracy incorporates the form of a Government based on the theory that all willing citizens can directly participate in the decision making process. Depending on the system of governance, all citizens are allowed to participate in the decision making process regarding judiciary, legislative and executive powers. Historically, the first form of systematically practiced democracy during the 5th century BC was a form of Direct democracy in Athens. The Athenian democracy consisted of assemblies of people who were chosen from among the citizens.
In the modern context, direct democracy is exclusively practiced in Switzerland and some states of the USA [11] . Switzerland has a long tradition of Direct Democracy and can be traced back to the late middle ages. Assemblies of electorates discussing and deciding major political issues have been practiced in parts of Switzerland since the foundation of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1921. However, the origins of Switzerland's modern system of Direct Democracy with formalized opinion polls and frequent referendums lie in the experimental phase of democracy of the 19th Century when Switzerland was surrounded by Monarchies on the European continent that possessed little regards and enthusiasm for democracy.
2.2.2 Indirect Democracy: "In that it is both an aspect of electoral behavior and a mechanism for determining the Government's responsiveness to the public representation has acquired the status of a democratic institution in political science. This despite the fact that political representation is not associated exclusively with democracy (it predates modern democratic steps and exists in states that are not democratic); in fact, its relation to democracy is permanently subject to debate" (Urbinati, 2006).
In indirect democracy, legislative, judiciary and executive decisions (depending on the system of Governance) affecting the lives of the citizens of a Nation are made not by the citizens themselves but by certain individuals representing the citizens who are elected by the citizens for their purpose. Therefore, this type of democracy is also more popularly known by the name "representative" democracy. Laws and rules are drafted by the citizen elect representatives. Most modern democracies today follow this form of democratic governance. Indirect democracy is based on the theories that,
The representatives or the officials elected by the people will make the Government carry out those courses of actions that they promised the citizens on the basis of which they were able to win the elections.
The elected representatives will always reflect the values, desires and goals of the general public who elected them in the course of their decisions, the result of which, no further supervision is required by the citizens over their actions and decisions.
On the basis of above mentioned points, the elected government officials who represent the people must always put their personal values, desires, objectives and goals far behind the wishes and desires of the citizens who elected them for indirect democracy to function the way it is intended to. In the absence of these characteristics, or rather roles to be portrayed by the elected representatives, indirect democracy fails because the assumptions upon which it is based no longer are effective in controlling and directing the Government policies and decisions.
2.2.3 Delegative Democracy: Apart from the aforementioned Direct and Indirect democracies, there is another form of democracy by the name of Delegative democracy. In this type of democracies, delegates are elected/ selected by the people and are anticipated to carry out Governance as per the wishes of the constituencies. The failure of the elected delegate to act in the interest of the constituency empowers the constituency to recall the delegate at any time. Representatives are expected to only transmit the decisions of the electors, advance their views and if they fail to do so, they will be subjected to immediate representative recall with minimal process. A Delegative system imposes no specific limit on the total number of representatives which are referred to as 'delegates' and to facilitate direct relationships with voters each delegate ideally represent only tens or at most a few hundred voters rather than thousands or ten thousands. Furthermore, voters are not forced to compete with each other for representation within any kind of predefined districts or constituencies, instead each voters choice of delegate is essentially unrestricted across the entire breadth of the Organizations and this choice acts as a direct transfer or delegation of power, hence the name Delegative democracy. " [12]
Comparative Democracy and relations with the Armed Forces
In order to study the Interrelations, Interdependence and coexistence of democracy and Armed Forces, it becomes imperative to study the past instances democracy in various countries and role armed forces has played in democracies. In this subchapter, the research will briefly investigate the democracies and role of Armed Forces of Africa, Asia and the Americas. Detailed investigations of relation between the two in major democracies is also studied in later chapters.
2.3.1 Africa: Africa is a continent that was so riddled with problems regarding good governance and economic development that a perception about the sub Saharan Africa by the name of "Afro pessimism" originated. [13] This perception gained widespread popularity due to the fact that in 1976, just 3 Nations of the Sub Saharan Africa were listed as free while 25 were "not free". The condition of freedom in most of the African Nations was miserable, especially in the Sub Saharan nations, where European colonies and minority ruled states still existed and autocracy or internal conflicts afflicted most of the newly independent states.
African continent was first put under the study of democracy only during the decades of 1950 and 1960 as an accompaniment of decolonization and in its most systematic form relied heavily upon ideas and approaches borrowed from American political science. The cause for this delay in the study of democracy in Africa was due to the fact that for obvious reasons, the study of politics and democracy were discouraged during the colonial era. The "mighty" Europeans considered Africans as backwards and hence unsuited to the pursuit of politics. But when political science and democracy did finally arrive in Africa mainly in response to the decolonizing formation of "New States", it was heavily inspired by the ideas and policies of American liberal commitments.
According to Roger Southall, a well known political scientist, African Democracy was soon to have much more in common with the 'peoples democracies" of the communist world than with the Liberal democracies of the West. This was to have a grave consequences in the later decades, when the hollowness of Africa's first attempt at democracy was to be laid bare by quite appealing, numerous and widespread violations of human rights by regimes which continued to claim popular legitimacy. This was mainly because the democratic trends of America that had influenced many neo democracies of Africa did not simply click. The socio economic conditions and geo politics of Africa made majority of democracies there a failure.
2.3.1.1 Post Cold War Africa: Before the end to the cold war, external actors played crucial role in shaping the political influences of many African Nations. Africa was gripped by rival superpowers that supported autocrats for their benefits for decades thus undermining democratic reforms in Africa. Similarly, superpower competition sparked and sustained many of Africa's post colonial civil wars, the recurrence of which still continue to hinder the democratization efforts of African continent. With the end of the cold war, Africa was led to a period of extraordinary democratic expansion most calling it the second wave of African democratization [14] .This surge in want for democracy led to the condition in which by late 1990s, none of the 48 Sub Saharan states of Africa retained an extremely autocratic nature of one party state monopoly. The monopoly on power that Africa's ruling parties had held for decades had finally been broken.
Similarly, If we briefly look at the conditions of some West African Nations, with the end of colonial domination within the territorial boundaries of West Africa and the advent of independence, hope of a new era of self governance and rule arose amongst many. However, to the dismay and shock of many, those optimisms were overshadowed by the involvement of military into politics leading to the region becoming a symbol of coups and widespread instability across the entire West African peninsula.
From independence through to date, the sixteen West African states [15] have experienced 44 successful military led coups, 43 often bloody failed coups, at least 82 coup plots, 7 civil wars and many other forms of political conflicts. [16] "These coups and conflicts have been a massive humanitarian and developmental disaster for west Africa and its 23 million people at least 2 million dead during and after the Biafran war [17] , at least 200,000 in the first Liberian civil war and more than 100,000 in Sierra Leone civil wars, with millions more international refugees and internally displaced persons resulting from these conflicts" (McGowan, 2005).
2.3.1.2 Overall Picture of Democratic tendencies in Africa today: Those who care about the fate of freedom in our world should focus on its condition in Africa today. Sub-Saharan Africa [18] today present at the same time some of the most promising examples of new democracies, wherein fairly elected leaders provide real opportunities for their citizens to live as free men and women, and some of the most disheartening examples of political stagnation, democratic backsliding, and state failure. Overall, the broad trend during the past quarter century has been one of increased freedom and institutional improvement, though setbacks remain all too common.
Democracy was, by and large, concentrated in Western Europe, North America, and the island nations of the Pacific. Throughout much of the rest of the world, strongmen, commissars, and military juntas held sway. The condition of freedom was especially bleak in sub-Saharan Africa, where European colonies and minority ruled states still existed and autocracy or internecine conflict afflicted most of the newly independent states. With the exception of a few bright spots, dictatorships of one political stripe or another ruled the majority of countries on the continent. Coups and counter-coups were commonplace, as were leaders who proclaimed themselves "President for Life." Elections, if held at all, were often used only to validate a current leader's rule.
Much has changed in the ensuing years, in the world and in Africa. The "third wave" of democratization politically transformed southern Europe, Latin America, and the former Communist countries of Central and Eastern Europe. In Africa, it set in motion not only the independence of the Portuguese colonies, but also a series of "national roundtables" that created new political dispensations in a number of African states (www.freedomhouse.org). If less far-reaching than in some other regions of the world, the gains for freedom in Africa were nevertheless significant. Africa's least reported story in recent years has been the continuing, if fitful, advance of freedom across the continent.
South and Latin America
South America is a land of different cultures and has a history of as many different types of government, mostly dictatorships. Most of South America won independence from Spain and Portugal between 1810 and 1824. In 1823, President James Monroe enunciated the first US policy on Latin America. The Monroe Doctrine warned European nations against interfering in the affairs of independent nations in the Western Hemisphere. In 1904, Roosevelt's Corollary said the US would act as a "policeman", intervening militarily when US interests were at risk. After W.W.II, the independent countries of the Western Hemisphere formed the Organization of American States, a military alliance to prevent aggression against any American nation. South America is the fourth largest continent. It ranks fifth in population. The continent is divided into 12 independent countries and two political units. The countries consist of Brazil, Columbia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru, Chile, Argentina, Bolivia, Paraguay, Uruguay, Guyana, Surinam, and French Guinea. In the 12 countries of South America, democracy has slowly been on the rise since 1959. The rise started in Venezuela and ended in Surinam. One by one South America's countries have turned from dictatorships into democracies where the voters control the elections.
Even with democracy taking control, the countries still have many problems. The largest problem is the tradition of corruption of the political leaders. The large drug trade has caused problems for the rise of democracy in South America. The large gap between rich and poor of South America has presented another challenge for democracy.
The military have historically threatened the democratic systems in South America. Today, the armed forces are mostly back in their barracks, but in most nations, the possibility and doubts still looms that the generals, heeding a real or imagined call to restore order, will impose military rule. This threat was illustrated by Chilean President Eduardo Frei's problems with Chile's former dictator, Gen. Augusto Pinochet until the year 1998. Each country in South America has faced some action that has tried to return them to what they once were--dictatorships. Venezuela, which has the oldest civilian regime in South America, suffered two coup attempts by army officers in 1992; both were unsuccessful and were put down.
Bolivia, which had 189 military coups in its first 168 years of independence, has become a country with stable democracy. Voters elected President Gonzalo Sanchez de Lozada to be the head of state in their new democracy. Columbia, the most violent country in South America, has had the hardest time dealing with corruption in their democracy. This is due to their booming drug trade.
After many years of democracy, Argentina is no longer in danger of a military takeover. Elected Presidents have tried to bring changes for the people, but have overlooked the fact that most of the people are suffering from the terrible economic conditions. Today, for the first time, all twelve South American countries have democratic governments. South America, a continent famous for coups and military dictators, has embraced civilian, democratic leadership. However, South American democracy is still very fragile. This is because in political terms, South America seems to be dividing into two.
On the one hand, a group of Andean countries - Venezuela, Colombia, Peru, Ecuador and landlocked Paraguay - continues to display signs of instability. On the other hand, Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Bolivia and Chile are rapidly becoming solid democracies. In neither case is there any prospect of a return to all-out authoritarian rule, by the military or anybody else. South America's generals left office, after their last period in power, accused of human rights abuses and chaotic economic mismanagement. Few of them want to repeat that experience. Other possible coup leaders - if they came to power - would find their lives made almost impossible by international pressure, especially from the United States.
Unlike some African countries, South America is sufficiently developed to have a big stake in the global economy, so approval from the outside world is crucial. In addition, the information revolution and the spread of education have given ordinary people a much clearer idea about the benefits of democracy. But in the unstable half of the continent, the past few years have not exactly been problem-free. Venezuela experienced two coup attempts in 1992, followed a little later by the forced resignation of the president, Carlos Andres Perez, on corruption charges. The man who led the first coup attempt, Hugo Chavez, is now president. Controversy rages about whether he is a visionary leader or an authoritarian populist. Another leader with authoritarian tendencies was Peru's Alberto Fujimori, who won two elections by handsome margins. But in between them, in 1992, he staged a "self-coup", dissolving Congress with the support of the military and having a new constitution written which, among other things, allowed him to stand for re-election for a third term, despite opposition protests.
Paraguay has been through two reasonably clean presidential elections since General Stroessner fell from power in 1989. But its democratic culture is weak. In March 1999, the country's most popular politician, Lino Oviedo, and his protege, President Raul Cubas, were forced to flee the country after the assassination of the vice-president, Luis Maria Argana and then there is Ecuador, where the quest for political stability has been persistently undermined by economic crisis. In 1997, President Abdala Bucaram was forced out of office by popular pressure; his next elected successor, Jamil Mahuad, suffered the same fate.
Things are very different in the other half of the continent. Uruguay and Argentina have suffered no constitutional upheavals since the return to democracy. Brazil did suffer one, in 1992, when President Fernando Collor de Mello resigned after accusations of massive corruption. But under president, Fernando Henrique Cardoso, Brazil shown signs of democratic maturity and is currently on the rise. What is clear is that while South American democracy remains shaky in places, it's still stronger than at any time in the continent's history and the threat to democratic rules from Armed Forces is a long past gone threat.
2.3.2.1 State of South American Democracy: "…First of all, let us remember that Latin America is a huge and complex continent with a very diverse political landscape. There are more differences than commonalities between Hugo Chavez and Michele Bachelet, Evo Morales and Luiz Inacio Lula da Silva, Nestor Kirchner and Tabare
