Alliance
Enforcer of the Republic
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.