SOC 300 Soldiers and Politics Week 9
Slide
# Topic Narration
1 Introduction Welcome to week nine of Sociology three hundred. This week we are going to discuss Soldiers and Politics.

In much of the Third World there has been military involvement in politics at the national level. Many prominent positions in government have been and continue to be held by military leaders.

Throughout this course, we have noted that the developing world is diverse. Thus, the level of military involvement in the political arena of each nation is different.

In many countries there is no clear dividing line between the armed forces and political activity.

With the rise of democracy in many Third World countries in recent years, there has been a steady decline in military leadership at the government level.

However, this is not to say that military leaders have completely stepped down from politics. In fact, countries such as Libya and Pakistan still have military rulers in the highest positions of government. In other countries the armed forces continue to exert considerable influence over civilian political leaders.

Prior to the nineteen eighties military involvement in politics of the developing world was pervasive. It was considered by some to be a defining feature of political underdevelopment. And certainly it was a feature of extreme instability within nations. A study of fifty nine developing nations shows that between nineteen forty six and nineteen seventy, there were two hundred and seventy four attempted military coups. Some countries experienced four to five takeover attempts within that period.

You may recall from our week one lesson that political scientists agree political stability is essential to development. It seems logical to conclude that this type of upheaval can only be a hindrance to the economic, social and political development so badly needed in many countries.

The last few decades have shown that military coups and regimes have declined as democracy has increased; this is most apparent in Latin America.
Today, for the most part, military governments stand out as the exception rather than the rule. In many countries, civilian governments have now established considerable control over the armed forces.

This session we will be exploring the causes of military takeovers, their goals once in office, and the subsequent outcomes.

Please go to slide # 2
2 Objectives Upon completion of this lesson you will be able to:
Recognize that many governments in developing countries either were or are military regimes;
Recognize that soldiers in developing countries often ignore any dividing line between military and political activity;
Understand the causes of military intervention into civil society and government in developing countries;
Examine the conduct and policies of military regimes;
Identify and discuss the “personalistic” military regime and the various types of institutional military regimes;
Understand the varied legacies of military regimes; and,
Identify the diverse causes for military regimes to withdraw from governance.
Please go to slide #3
3 Overview In this lesson, we will be discussing the military regimes which have headed governments in many L-D-C’s. We will see that soldiers in many developing countries have often ignored any dividing line between the military and political activity. However, this is more a feature of the recent past than of today.

We will also examine military coups and discuss the nature of the armed forces, and civil society.

There are different types of military regimes and we will also have some analysis of their properties and goals.

In much that same way as we questioned the success and failures of revolutionary regimes, we will discuss the outcomes of military regimes.
Several questions need to be addressed:

Have military regimes improved stability and development in L-D-C’s?

Do they hold office long enough to make a difference to the well being of the citizens?

Have they attained their goals?

What initiates a withdrawal form political activity?

Finally, what are the new roles for the armed forces?

In conclusion there will be a short discussion of Democracy and the Military.

Please go to slide #4
4 Soldiers and Politics Many developing countries have had and continue to have military governments; advanced industrial democracies have produced leaders with military backgrounds.

However, in advanced industrial democracies men such as Dwight Eisenhower, Charles de Gaulle, and Ariel Sharon were voted in as private citizens in a democratic situation. In other words, they were retired from the military and did not assume office after a military coup.

But in many L-D-C’s there is no clear division of military and state, just as in some, there is no division of church and state.

Still, there are exceptions. In countries such as India, Malaysia, Kenya, Tunisia, Mexico and Costa-Rica, there has been little influence from the military in politics for decades.

Until the last two decades of the twentieth century, military governments were common in many Third World countries.

It should be noted, however, that this phenomenon has been declining steadily since the nineteen eighties. This is particularly true in Latin America. In much the same way that the influence of the catholic church in politics has waned due to the spread of democracy, so too has military intervention waned in Latin America. Democracy alone may not guarantee immunity from military coups, as further analysis will show.

We will move on to discuss the changes in civil-military relations in L-D-C’s

Please go to slide #5
5 The Causes of Military Intervention. Two alternative perspectives attempt to explain the prevalence of military regimes in developing countries.

The first focuses on the internal characteristics of the armed forces.

The second focuses on the general political environment and the weaknesses of the civilian regimes.

What are the characteristics of the armed forces which enable them to be politically active at the national level?

Early research points to the armed forces ability to provide stability due to their social cohesion and organizational skills, which are often lacking in civilian regimes.

However, there are different perspectives.

Theorists, Samuel Huntington, Alfred Stepan, and Michael Desch all have similar theories as to why the military in L-D-C’s has been active in the political arena.

All three agree that it depends on whether the armed forces are engaged in external security, which Stepan refers to as ‘old’ military professionalism, or internal security, which he calls ‘new’ military professionalism.

As we have seen, many developing nations are plagued by internal conflict. It is precisely the training which officers are given to quell this type of unrest that enables them to enter the political arena.
Education and training to deal with internal disturbance involves the study of domestic politics and economic issues. Consequently, officers assume they are more able to run the country. They see themselves as capable of making sound economic decisions which will lead to growth and development.

Desch concludes that if the military is dealing with external threats, the civilian regime has more control over the military. However, once they become highly involved in domestic issues, civilian control is generally weakened.

Although these observations help us to understand how the military is able to intervene in politics, there are other considerations to consider.
A second group of theories focus on the political and institutional structures of civil society.

Civilian governments, which have substantial support from the elite and political parties, and maintain stability over a healthy economy, are unlikely to fall victim to military coups.

Samuel Finer notes that the national political culture is important in the maintenance of civilian control.

If a government enjoys widespread consensus and legitimacy along with the support of independent organized groups capable of defending civilian rule, coup attempts will usually fail.

Governments need not be democratic in order to achieve legitimacy and control over the military. If a party system penetrates and organizes society it can also prevent coups. Examples of this are the authoritarian governments of Mexico, Cuba, Taiwan and China.

However, government legitimacy can be fragile, especially when political stability is compromised because of economic decay or perceived corruption.

Briefly, then, the possibility of military intervention correlates with a nation’s political institutions, the political culture, and the level of economic development.

There are also other noteworthy dimensions. The values of the elite are important to the political structure of society. For example, unlike its neighboring countries, India has been ruled exclusively by civilians since its independence. This is because India’s political elite subscribe strongly to the principle of civilian control.

Moreover, the political experience of the elite in some regions has helped keep civilian control.

Political pacts between rival parties have emphasized inter-party cooperation and have reduced conflict and helped maintain stable civilian governments.

Please go to slide #6
6 Progressive Soldiers and Military Conservatives We now move on to an examination of the political behavior and policies of military regimes once they have gained control.

Do they make a progressive change or merely defend the status quo?

Early modernization theorists firmly believed that the military could contribute to development and certainly there is evidence of success in this area. For example, Colonel Abdul Gamal Nasser of Egypt came to power with promises of modernization through industrialization, expansion of education, and agrarian reform. And others have come to power promising support to multi national corporations and the land-owning elites.

Those who support the poor view the economic elites and vast corporations as the source of their country’s underdevelopment.
They are able to harness the support of the middle classes who view the elite as an obstacle to their own political and social prominence. In this instance, the military, and the middle classes see the poor as allies and take steps to mobilize them.

Regimes which achieve a level of modernization must confront the consequences.

Modernization has the effect of strengthening the middle classes. This enables them to have more political influence which was previously blocked by the elite. It also increases the size of the working class, and enhances the trade union movement. This leads to greater political awareness and participation for the poor. Commercialization in agriculture has the effect of creating frustration and rebellion in the countryside.

Together, these consequences have the potential to create political polarization and growing civil unrest.

Under such circumstances the poor are then viewed as a threat rather than an ally.

Seeing these effects in countries with an established middle class, conservative military leaders are more likely to support the elite, and defend the status-quo.

Please go to slide #7
7 The Goals Of Military Regimes In this next section, we will briefly discuss the goals of the different types of military governments.

In many of the poorest third world countries, individual military officers have seized power for their own personal gain.

These regimes are referred to as personalistic regimes. In order to stay in power these dictators use state plunder to ensure support from the elite. There are many examples of this type of activity in your text.
Often the need to stay in power has had dire consequences for those who do not support the regime.

Idi Amin of Uganda murdered thousands of civilians, including one of wives. He also created conflict between ethnic groups for his own ends during his brutal eight year regime.

Lacking any meaningful ideology personalistic regimes resort to this type of extreme corruption to stay in power and this has often led to government bankruptcy.

Institutional Regimes are less self serving and are more likely to govern collectively. Some of these regimes have one single leader whose term in office is limited.

Sometimes these regimes can be just as corrupt and brutal as personalistic dictatorships; however, they do espouse a coherent political ideology, and are more likely to champion nationalistic causes.

In general, Institutional Regimes pursue four broad objectives: they promise to rid the country of corruption; they seek to advance military corporate interests; they seek to restore social order; and they promise to stimulate the economy.

Industrialization is seen as a way to achieving at least some of these goals, not least of all because it promotes national pride and international prestige.

Industrial growth, while stimulating the economy as a whole, also provides the armed forces with weaponry, which previously had to be imported.

We should not be surprised, then, that military regimes sometimes forge a political alliance with the elite and the industrialists. There are two sub types of these regimes which have been in focus in recent years: the bureaucratic authoritarian regime, and the revolutionary military regime.

It was mentioned earlier that institutional regimes can be repressive and brutal. This was certainly the case in the coups in South America between nineteen sixty four and nineteen seventy six.

What was all the more shocking was that these coups took place in four of the most advanced societies of the developing world: Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay and Chile. And two of these were long standing democracies.

This refutes the notion that a well developed economy and democracy guarantees protection from military take over.

So why did this happen?

As these countries developed, so did the political awareness of the general population. While this can be seen as a positive step forward, it can also create civil unrest in the short term. Moreover, the economies of these countries fell into decline after an initial upsurge; this meant the demands of the poor could not be accommodated.

Investors are reluctant to invest where there is civil unrest. In order to persuade the multinational corporations to keep on investing in these countries, the military saw it as necessary to suppress and depoliticize the populace. This was achieved in a brutal fashion; thousands of people were murdered and others simply disappeared. These regimes lasted longer and penetrated society more deeply than previous regimes.

To the left of these right wing conservative B-A regimes, there were the more revolutionary type regimes which had been active in many L-D-C’s. They extended political and economic participation to the poor although they were tightly controlled by an authoritarian political structure.

Do either of these regimes achieve their goals? We will move on to discuss their accomplishments and failures.

Please go to slide #8
8 The Accomplishments And Failures Of Military Regimes Let’s quickly review the four broad goals of the institutional military regimes: they promise to rid the country of corruption; they seek to advance military corporate interests; they seek to restore social order; and they promise to stimulate the economy.

Evidence that the military has been successful in combating corruption is scant. In some cases military coups have exacerbated civilian corruption. Leaders often attempt to gather whatever resources they can in the expectation of being ousted from office at any time.

Even those military governments with noble intentions eventually succumb to corruption. For some regimes, nepotism and the appropriation of wealth begins immediately after taking office.

However, when it comes to defending military corporate interest, there has been greater success.

Military spending is increased, not only in the form of salary hikes and expensive weapons systems, but on military housing and luxurious officers clubs.

This has a negative consequence for L-D-C’s in general as they have limited resources at the outset. Expanding military budgets create competition for resources between generals, which damages their institutional cohesion. Often this means a step down from government and a return to the barracks to avoid further internal divisions.

The pattern of military expenditure varies from country to country, and is largely dependent on circumstance at any given time. If there is an external threat or internal warfare, military spending is likely to increase.

From the statistical information in your text it can be seen that some countries have posed limitations on military spending. However, in some, the proportion of G-D-P spent on the armed forces far exceeds the budget allocated for health and education. Needless to say, this has negative consequences for economic and social development.

One justification for military rule is the advancement of the country. Clearly this cannot be achieved if there is excessive military spending.

The Third Wave of democracy has strengthened the legitimacy and authority of newly elected governments and this has enabled some to control the military and reduce their spending.

We should note, however, that not all democracies are immune from coups. This will be discussed in the conclusion.

Military expenditure is still a cause for concern in all types of government. In the authoritarian regimes of Ethiopia and Myanmar, there is still massive military spending. This is echoed in the democracies of India, South Korea and Taiwan because of the threat from immediate neighbors.

Creating stability is one of the four goals of military regimes. How successful have they been in that goal?

The very nature of the armed forces means that they are well able to establish social order and stability. They use force to quell uprisings, guerilla insurrections, and street protests.

However, this is often at great cost in human suffering. Hundreds of thousands of civilians have lost their lives throughout the developing world as the military struggles to promote stability.

Where they may have achieved success in the short term, long term political stability has been elusive. However, there have been exceptions in Asia, Latin America and South Korea. Still, for the most part, military regimes stay in power for limited periods and this compromises stability.

Moreover, the repressive tactics used to control civil unrest impedes the maturation of political parties and other civilian institutions necessary for long term stability.

The final goal is economic development. Without stability, this is hard to achieve. We have noted that coups often follow an economic downturn; consequently, they start from a disadvantaged position.
It certainly cannot help the situation that once in office they greatly increase their own budget.

However, in some cases, there has been an improvement in the economy. South Korea has had sustained economic growth accompanied by a high level of equitable distribution of income.

We should take note here that the armed forces had a good deal of stability in South Korea and they governed for more than twenty five years. This is not typical of most military regimes.

In some other Asian countries, there was also successful economic growth, although excessive borrowing and corruption meant the gains were only temporary.

Brazil and Chile have also had some gains, though not without cost.
Chili’s poor suffered considerably as income distribution deteriorated. Fortunately, the restoration of civilian control has helped to reduce their poverty. In a similar vein, the economic growth in Brazil adversely affected the poor, as the benefits were poorly distributed.
Moreover, excessive foreign borrowing, created a massive external debt.

Other Latin American regimes have also spent excessively on defense, borrowed too much, suffered from corruption, and failed to understand development economics.

Where there has been success in economic performance by military rulers, they have understood their limitations, and pursued the policies recommended by civilian advisors.

Please go to slide #9
9 Military Withdrawal From Politics. There are several reasons why the military will step down from government and return to the barracks: their objectives have been accomplished, there is no value in retaining power, the economy has taken a downturn, internal cohesion is compromised, and there is loss of legitimacy.

In some countries, the reduction of internal conflict, due to peace treaties, has also meant a reduced role for the armed forces. Recall that the military will often stage coups in order to control civil unrest.

If L-D-C’s manage to maintain political stability and social cohesion, the roles of the military must change. In reality, the new roles for the military are not that new.

They include: drug traffic control, anti-terrorist activity, emergency relief efforts and peacekeeping efforts. Often these roles have led to corruption in the past. It remains to be seen whether they are a viable alternative to the roles the military have assumed in the recent past.

Please go to slide #10
10 Conclusion: Democracy And The Military Democracy has not eliminated the potential for coups completely although there has been a reduction in the level of attempted coups.

In some cases, even where there has been democratically elected governments the military retains extensive power over the civilian regimes.

If democracy is to be consolidated, the military must be placed under civilian control. This is accepted as the norm in the advanced industrialized democracies of the West and in a small number of L-D-C’s.

Moreover, the civilian population must accept the separation of Soldiers and Politics.

Many would-be politicians who fail through legitimate channels, use corrupt methods and harness military support to achieve office.
Why are these measures necessary?

Even the best military governments inhibit political development. Their repressive measures to instill social order stalls the political creativity of would be politicians and restricts the flow of the political process.

Please go to slide #11
11 Summary We conclude this lesson with a brief summary of what we have covered.

We discussed the nature of military regimes in the developing world. In doing so we identified certain characteristics of the military which has enabled them to overthrow civilian rule.

We also examined the nature of civil society, and noted the weaknesses which contributes to their demise.

There was discussion of why some regimes support the poor, and others the elite. The goals of the personalisitic dictators and the institutional regimes were identified.

Some time was spent evaluating the accomplishments and failures of the various regimes. We saw that there have indeed been some accomplishments in economic development and political mobilization, but this was costly for the poor. It seems overall that the military benefited most. Once the benefits wane then withdrawal from the political arena is likely.

Finally, we discussed alternative roles for the military and concluded with a brief discussion of democracy and the military.

This concludes this week’s session.