Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

It is an essential tenet that in liberal democracies, the ideal military is apolitical, socially inert, and under complete civilian control.

However, some modern scholars have challenged this philosophy, saying that the military could play a more active socio-political role in liberal democracies without threatening the stability of democracies.

We can look at situations like Turkey, where military involvement in politics has been both repeated and helped to build and maintain democratic values. We can also look at Pakistan where military coups have failed to produce democratic values.

Should the military be considered a democratic institution along the lines of a judiciary and the electoral system? Is military intervention in politics ever appropriate, what determines that. How can the military be structured to promote democratic values, regardless of its political activeness. What is the relationship between citizen and soldier and can the two ever be separated?

No. For every one instance you have a successful military coup that set up a democracy, you have five that started a brutal regime.

I don't even think that Democracy alone is such a great thing...and I think one that can be forced legally by a military might be even worse.

As big a fan of the military I am, I do not think the military should become political in any way. The military should be for preservation and protection, not political intervention.

I love the army. As I mature, a tour of service in Afghanistan after I get my degree is becoming much more appealing.

However, as much as I like the army, I'd go as far as to say I don't necessarily think they should get the vote. As the good little fascist I am, I see the military as a tool of the State, and thus should have no ability to influence it.

Although, at the highest levels, I think the military should be run by people who aren't politicians, to try and avoid all of that ugliness.

I think what I am trying to say is that I want cake, and I also want that cake to have been eaten.

Then take the case of Idi Amin. Took power the same way as the Turkish military. He killed 300,000.

Originally posted by inimalist
I love the army. As I mature, a tour of service in Afghanistan after I get my degree is becoming much more appealing.

However, as much as I like the army, I'd go as far as to say I don't necessarily think they should get the vote. As the good little fascist I am, I see the military as a tool of the State, and thus should have no ability to influence it.

Although, at the highest levels, I think the military should be run by people who aren't politicians, to try and avoid all of that ugliness.

I think what I am trying to say is that I want cake, and I also want that cake to have been eaten. Funny thing about Canada is that a bunch of farmers could beat our army.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Funny thing about Canada is that a bunch of farmers could beat our army.

we have the best trained army in the world

too bad we are stuck buying the equipment that the rest of the developed world doesn't want any more...

but ya, I am a little dissapointed in Canada's contribution to North American defense.

Originally posted by inimalist
we have the best trained army in the world

too bad we are stuck buying the equipment that the rest of the developed world doesn't want any more...

but ya, I am a little dissapointed in Canada's contribution to North American defense. Dunno, North America seems pretty safe.

Our problem is that we have a ridiculous officer to enlisted ratio. That's why we are called the best trained, I don't think it is because our soldiers have the best training regiments...

At least the government is trying to fix that now... That submarine we bought from the British a couple years ago made me want to cry it was in such bad shape and so ultimately useless.

Originally posted by Nellinator
Our problem is that we have a ridiculous officer to enlisted ratio. That's why we are called the best trained, I don't think it is because our soldiers have the best training regiments...

At least the government is trying to fix that now... That submarine we bought from the British a couple years ago made me want to cry it was in such bad shape and so ultimately useless.

I can't even begin to comprehend why we would be buying subs that the brits don't want anymore...

Our entire military budget seems to go to items that are obscelete in the rest of the modern world's military...

I'm not too informed on the regiment. I believe JTF2s training is one of the hardest regiments in the world for elite forces, and afaik, our soldiers beat the americans in war games very frequently when we use their equip. I'm not 100% on that last one though

Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then take the case of Idi Amin. Took power the same way as the Turkish military. He killed 300,000.

I've never studied Amin's army, but I would bet that the strcutres of Ataturk's and Amin's armies were different and Ataturk's was mroe strucutred to promote democratic values.

Also, a military coup is no different than an election...they both can become dictatorships if the leader does not step down. I don't hear anyone calling for a cessation of elections because sometimes they go awry.

There is an often looked diversity in militaries...academia apparently says...and army is an army and its bad...and moves on.Originally posted by Bardock42
You mean Starship Troopers like?

Kind of...its not exactly a bad example to look at. To some extend we already see Heinlein's system in place in politics today.

What do you mean by 'structured better for democracy'? That makes absolutely no sense to me.

I see what you are saying, and it is very cool in principal. As a thought experiment I really like it.

However, I would say the same about communism, and I would probably argue against this in practice for similar reasons.

As you said, the military is unique in its justifiable use of force. Not only in the fact that we support it, but also the fact that there is no real way that a society could hope to oppose the might of a modern military IF it decided to seize control. That is too much power not to have a leash on it. People, elected or not, cannot be expected to act appropriatly in such an asymmetrical distribution of power. I would argue the same about democracy in general (and no I don't have a better solution) but at least in that case there are a few degrees of seperation between the person giving the attack orders and the people with the guns in their hands.

I am very unfamiliar with the military in Turkey, so please elaborate on how they managed to make it work

wow, if something like that could be made to work here I would be in full support...

seems a little untrustworthy... but I feel that way about all authority...

Originally posted by inimalist
wow, if something like that could be made to work here I would be in full support...

seems a little untrustworthy... but I feel that way about all authority...
It is my opinon that it could. However, in many nations the military would need to be restructured and become more integrated into society, likely though mandatory service. The military has also enjoyed the highest public support of any governmental institution in the US since WWII. Its ratings have been as high as 80, 90%

But I really don't like being totalitarian. Thus, you can choose not to serve and forfeit your franchise as a citizen. Of course, I do believe that the combat force should remain all volunteer, assembled only in times of need.Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then what of Bangledesh? Compulsory military service, and democracy has sucked there. Coup after coup.

Let me list most of Dolman's factors:

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Focus on External Conflict
3. Structure
4. Professionalism
5. Societal Integration
6. Highly and Representatively Inclusive

(thats nto the whole list, I dont have his book on hand at the moment).

These are things that increase the democratic value of a military.

I'm not that familiar with Bangladesh's politics and military, but you're not focusing on the core of my argument.

Compulsory military service does not magically make an army democratic. I've never claimed it has. I have a feeling that Bangladesh's military is lacking many of the items I've posted above.

*raises hand* So would the people vote on anything involved with the military?

(based on #6)

Originally posted by Alliance
It is my opinon that it could. However, in many nations the military would need to be restructured and become more integrated into society, likely though mandatory service. The military has also enjoyed the highest public support of any governmental institution in the US since WWII. Its ratings have been as high as 80, 90%

But I really don't like being totalitarian. Thus, you can choose not to serve and forfeit your franchise as a citizen. Of course, I do believe that the combat force should remain all volunteer, assembled only in times of need.
.

I know the swiss have a similar requirement of their citizens, and they also require them to all own a gun in their home (oddly, or maybe no so odd, they have a very low gun crime rate).

That part I am in favor of in principal. The integration doesn't bother me too too much either, its the independence. Not that I don't think it would work, I just feel that, on a very basic level, that is too much power to give the people with the guns. How does one guarantee that the army remains loyal to human rights and democracy rather than a corrupt leader?

What do you mean by democratizing the army? are you suggesting that citizens of the nation should have a say in the leadership of the military?

Originally posted by Alliance
Let me list most of Dolman's factors:

1. Loyalty to the State
2. Focus on External Conflict
3. Structure
4. Professionalism
5. Societal Integration
6. Highly and Representatively Inclusive


Then we are talking about an army that only about 6 countries have, and none of them have had military coups.

Originally posted by chithappens
*raises hand* So would the people vote on anything involved with the military?

(based on #6)

I don't know what you're asking.

Originally posted by inimalist
I know the swiss have a similar requirement of their citizens, and they also require them to all own a gun in their home (oddly, or maybe no so odd, they have a very low gun crime rate).

That part I am in favor of in principal. The integration doesn't bother me too too much either, its the independence. Not that I don't think it would work, I just feel that, on a very basic level, that is too much power to give the people with the guns. How does one guarantee that the army remains loyal to human rights and democracy rather than a corrupt leader?

What do you mean by democratizing the army? are you suggesting that citizens of the nation should have a say in the leadership of the military?

What I'm suggesting is that military training be integrated into everyones education. I'm suggesting that to become a franchised citizen, you must first partake in service to the state.

I doubt the military command will ever become an elected post. It probably should not be (like a second judiciary). By democratizing I mean structuring a nations armed services that promotes democratic values. Look at Israel and the IDF. Every male participates (save a few religious exemptions for fundamentalist Jewish groups and Arab Muslims). You serve your mandatory limit, then afterwards, begin your carrer as normal. A large majority of the population chooses to make a carrer in the military, then retire around forty, and start a civilian career.

The reason, it seems, this is less dangerous (addressing your independance issue) is that everyone serves ro has served in the IDF. There is very little non-nationalist ideology in the military because the pluralism of societyt is present in the ranks. Thereafter, there is a mutual understanding between citizen and soldier because everone know what the other man is going throguh.

And as I've said before, the military serves as a futher check and balance. Obviously a coup is a last resort and we don't see them often. The election of a Democrat or a Republican is not a threat to democratic values. However, If a president chose to say for example, dismiss the Judiciary, I'm confident a military response would be justified, perhaps a coup.

THis leads us to....

In the IDF, soldiers recieve classes on the history of Isreal and democratic values. They also learn how those values apply to them as soldier-civilians and how the military is there to prtect those values. Originally posted by RocasAtoll
Then we are talking about an army that only about 6 countries have, and none of them have had military coups.

Dolman notes that is not an absolute system, there is no distinct cutoff where we cna say "this army is democratized" and this army is not. While there have not ben coups in some liberal democracies, there has not been a situation where one is needed.

Also, a coup is not the only form of military intervention. In fact, it is likely the most extreme form. Keep in mind the US used military intervention during the race riots and desegregation. The UK did the same during labor riots.

Granted, these instances were at the direct command of civilian leadership. But, in the US case, the US army circumvenvented lower levels of civilian authority. In stable countries like the US, a coup may never be needed because the democracy itself stands so firmly grounded. However, the US is not the only nation in the world.

America has this mentality that no other country has where we consider military men to be President. In many countries, it's unheard of, but for some reason, Americans relate military strength with political effectiveness. Eisenhower, Grant, Washington, the speculation swarming around Colin Powell, and there's John Kerry, and to some extent, Wesley Clark.

Why is that?

Originally posted by Strangelove
False statement...

ISREAL

Beyond most countries, then

13