What does Argentine society think about the dictatorship 50 years later?

The Pulsar.UBA Observatory and CELS present the findings of the study *Retrospective Perspectives on the Argentine Dictatorship: 50 Years Later*, which consists of a quantitative study (1,136 cases) and a qualitative study (8 focus groups) with a nationwide scope.

Half a century after the 1976 coup d’état, the report offers an analysis of how Argentine society remembers, interprets, and evaluates the last military dictatorship. The data show that the memory of repression remains present and that the language of human rights continues to shape collective memory.

The negative assessment of the dictatorship is overwhelmingly supported by the majority. Seventy-one percent believe that the military government was “bad” or “very bad.” Furthermore, 63% state that there were no grounds to justify the 1976 coup d’état. For the majority, the primary responsibility for the institutional breakdown lies with the military juntas led by Videla, Massera, and Agosti.

For the majority of the population, the period is primarily characterized as a systematic campaign of forced disappearances and human rights violations (61%). However, 32% interpret it as a “fight against terrorism in which there may have been excesses,” indicating that, while there is a clear consensus of condemnation, areas of ambiguity persist in the interpretation of the period.

The dictatorship does not seem like a distant or vague event: seven out of ten people say they know a lot or at least something about what happened between 1976 and 1983, and their first associations are with disappearances, repression, and human rights violations.

The study shows that this memory is transmitted through schools, universities, and family conversations. Direct experience is rare: only three out of ten people report having a family member, friend, or acquaintance who was disappeared or persecuted. This finding is central: where there is a personal connection to victims, positions become more firm, and interpretations that recognize the systematic nature of state terrorism are held with greater clarity.

Another of the study’s most significant findings is that, half a century later, the language of human rights continues to shape the way Argentine society describes and understands the dictatorship. The categories of “disappearance,” “repression,” “rights violations,” and “systematic plan” are part of democratic common sense.

The research supports the idea that condemnation of the dictatorship is a shared foundation, but it also highlights the importance of intergenerational transmission to prevent relativization and denial.

At CELS and Pulsar.UBA, we believe that memory is a social experience that shapes our understanding of the present, our beliefs, and our commitment to democracy. That is why we are making the results of this study available to the public.

The full report in Spanish is available here.