Military involvment in politics.

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.

To J Beowolf and Inamalist (and everyone else)

First, the military is seemingly inseparable from modern democracies, both as the ideological guardians of the national identity and as the state’s premier mechanism of self-defense. Second, the military itself has a near monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This legitimacy comes not only from the state, but often from broad public support. Third, there is an often overlooked diversity of militaries, whose structures and compositions can not only be democratic themselves, but can promote democratic values and effective political involvement within the military itself.

The military itself is inherently political. Its is one with the state.

I don't want to bite off all of this at once, so I'm going to take it a step at a time. "soft" military intervention happens in the US and UK already...it doesn't involve regime change, but there are times when the military has been used in civil disputes and politics.

Take Turkey, you have a government threatening to promote Islamicism, is not the removal of tht government by FORCE, upholding preserving democracy?

And as far as voting, how do you dinstinguish between civilian and soldier. If anything, soldiers exhibit a higer form of citizenship. Perhaps they should be the only ones to vote. (not necessarily while in the service, but as a right of passage)

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

Ahh...but instead of being blatantly myopic about it what if there were distinct qualities that seperated the too?

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

Originally posted by Alliance
To J Beowolf and Inamalist (and everyone else)

First, the military is seemingly inseparable from modern democracies, both as the ideological guardians of the national identity and as the state’s premier mechanism of self-defense. Second, the military itself has a near monopoly on the legitimate use of force. This legitimacy comes not only from the state, but often from broad public support. Third, there is an often overlooked diversity of militaries, whose structures and compositions can not only be democratic themselves, but can promote democratic values and effective political involvement within the military itself.

The military itself is inherently political. Its is one with the state.

I don't want to bite off all of this at once, so I'm going to take it a step at a time. "soft" military intervention happens in the US and UK already...it doesn't involve regime change, but there are times when the military has been used in civil disputes and politics.

Take Turkey, you have a government threatening to promote Islamicism, is not the removal of tht government by FORCE, upholding preserving democracy?

And as far as voting, how do you dinstinguish between civilian and soldier. If anything, soldiers exhibit a higer form of citizenship. Perhaps they should be the only ones to vote. (not necessarily while in the service, but as a right of passage)

Ahh...but instead of being blatantly myopic about it what if there were distinct qualities that seperated the too?

You mean Starship Troopers like?

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.

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.

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.

There is a large study by Carl Dolman that correlated the structure of militaries and democratic values of the military.

If a military stresses loyalty to the state and long term preparation focusing on external and not internal conflicts, the military is more likely to hold democratic values than militaries that don’t. If a military is highly structured and emphasizes unity, professionalism, and inclusion into society are more likely to foster democratic institutions than those that don’t. If a military is highly inclusive, egalitarian, and includes a proportionally large percentage of the population, it is more likely to have democratic principles than those that don’t.

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 🙂

Originally posted by inimalist
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.

The differnece here is that distinctions are being made between appropriate uses and inapporpriate uses within a democracy itself. "Communism" was very loose as a term and referrs to a very...diverse..group of governments.

Originally posted by inimalist
That is too much power not to have a leash on it.

Well, part of it is controlled by the military itself. Giving the structural aspects of the military Dolman has researched, inclusiveness is a major factor. Thats why in nations like Israel, where military service is mandatory, you see a military that has heavy democratic ideals.

Off course there should still be some sort of outside oversight on the military, there is dialogue/oversight between all branches of government. Checks and balances.

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

Well, you can look at whats happening right now. Turkey is a predominatly Muslim nation, but since the Republic was founded, has had secular government as an ideal. Ataturk (=George Washington type) was a man of the military and really envisioned the military as the gaurdian of the state.

Recently, the new conservative government (Thank you, US) tried to elect Abdullah Gul, a very conservative and devout muslim with Islamicist/non-secular leanings leanings, president. More than a million Turks have protested this. However, the Military has a responsibility to uphold secularism in government. It has threatened to coup if Gul is elected, since creating an Islamic state would defy not only the Turkish constitution, but the values of democracy.

Ironically, the US and EU have condemned potentiall military action that would interfere with politics.

This is a perfect exaple of a situation where we see a democracy under attack and the modern consensus is that it is undemocratic for the military to intervene in politics. I find it amusing that the US and EU would like to see Turkey transformed into an Islamic or nonsecular state. We're talking about a Muslim democracy that runs joint military ops with Isreal. Its a unique state in the region.

More history? I don't want to blab too much...but here:

Like Israel, Turkey has a conscription policy that applies to all adult males. Also, similarly to Israel, public polls show that “the military remains as the most trustworthy organization in Turkey.” However, Turkey has had four military coups in 1920, 1960, 1971, and 1980 and another serious military intervention in 1997. The most significant of these coups was the 1920 coup, lead by Mustafa Kemal Atatürk, which deposed the Ottoman regime and subsequently led to the formation of the Turkish Republic. “The Republican leaders were realistic enough to recognize that a strong and loyal army was vital if the young Republic was to endure. As a modernizing regime, they aimed at comprehensive political-cultural transformation which was certain to generate deep opposition. Diagnosing that society's support for the Republican project was not strong, the Kemalist leaders saw armed forces as the main pillar of the new regime, at least until the Republic had nourished its own defenders.” Thus the military became the central pillar of Turkish democracy.

After the transition to full democracy in 1946, perceived deviance from the Kemalist doctrine was the rationale of the 1960 and 1971 coups. Similarly to Israel, the military has a strong national identity and considers itself as the primary guardian on the state. Like Israel, Turkey has had historical conflicts, both externally with nations like the Soviet Union and its internal issues with Islamicists and Kurdish seperatists. The perceived Islamic threat was the rationale behind the 1997 military intervention, when the military felt that Prime Minister Erbakan and his Refah party were too closely tied to extremists and thus, equating religious fundamentalism with terrorism, were a threat to Turkish democracy. First, the military called for Prime Minister Erbakan’s resignation. The military then circumvented the elected government and drastically increased ties with Israel, especially the IDF and Israeli intelligence operations. Turkey, Israel, and the United States engaged in joint operations and training, with Turkey and Israel even sharing their airspace for joint exercises. The Turkish Constitutional court ruled that the Refah party was in violation of the secular demands of the Turkish constitution, ideals inspired by Atatürk, and dissolved the political party. Under continued bombardment from the military, the military command secured a regime change and Erbakan finally resigned.

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 Alliance
There is a large study by Carl Dolman that correlated the structure of militaries and democratic values of the military.

If a military stresses loyalty to the state and long term preparation focusing on external and not internal conflicts, the military is more likely to hold democratic values than militaries that don’t. If a military is highly structured and emphasizes unity, professionalism, and inclusion into society are more likely to foster democratic institutions than those that don’t. If a military is highly inclusive, egalitarian, and includes a proportionally large percentage of the population, it is more likely to have democratic principles than those that don’t.

Then what of Bangledesh? Compulsory military service, and democracy has sucked there. Coup after coup.