Civil-military relations in Latin America were often characterised by the military's prominent role in governance and a historical pattern of military interventions in politics. The military saw itself as the guardian of national stability and often stepped in to fill what it perceived as a vacuum of effective leadership. This led to the establishment of military regimes in countries like Brazil and Argentina, which promised to bring order but severely disrupted the democratic process. The military’s direct control over the political sphere through coups d'état and its involvement in government significantly hindered the development of stable democratic governance structures.

The United States' foreign policy, driven by the doctrine of containment, viewed the rise of leftist governments in Latin America as a threat to its security and economic interests. Through a series of covert operations, financial embargoes, and direct support to opposition groups, the U.S. significantly influenced the internal political dynamics of Latin American countries. For instance, in Chile, the U.S. supported the coup against Allende and helped sustain Pinochet's regime despite its human rights violations. This interventionist policy often prioritised U.S. strategic interests over the democratic choices of the Latin American populace, contributing to political instability and the erosion of democratic norms.

Regional organizations, such as the Organization of American States (OAS), played a complex role in democratic movements in Latin America. They were intended to promote solidarity and cooperation among countries in the Western Hemisphere. However, the OAS was often criticised for its ineffectiveness in defending democratic principles when member states faced coups or undemocratic changes in government. While the organization did condemn certain undemocratic actions, such as the Dominican Republic invasion in 1965, it was often seen as a tool of U.S. foreign policy. Consequently, the OAS's impact on fostering genuine democratic movements was limited, as its actions did not consistently support the upholding of democratic norms in the region.

Economic policies, especially those influenced by international actors like the IMF and the World Bank, often had a dual impact on Latin American democracies. On one hand, the implementation of liberal economic policies and structural adjustments were intended to stabilise economies but frequently led to social inequalities and discontent, weakening the support for democratic regimes. On the other hand, populist leaders used state-driven economic policies to redistribute wealth and gain mass support. However, these policies were often unsustainable, leading to economic crises that would erode the public’s trust in democratic governance and pave the way for authoritarian alternatives promising stability.

Political ideologies during the period were significantly shaped by the broader Cold War context, which saw the United States and the Soviet Union vying for global influence. In Latin America, the fear of leftist ideologies, such as socialism and communism, gaining a foothold led to a number of reactionary movements and the establishment of right-wing dictatorships. The U.S., through its policy of containment, supported authoritarian regimes as bulwarks against communism. This ideological battle often overshadowed grassroots democratic aspirations and was used as a justification for political repression, thus stifling the development of democratic institutions.