Military Politics

2021 ◽  
pp. 53-94
Author(s):  
Zoltan Barany

This chapter is concerned with military politics. It views the kingdoms as family states and weighs the domestic threats they face from conflicts pertaining to succession and intra-family divisions. The downsides of one of the structural aspects of these states—for example, the immense power of a few individuals to make weighty decisions—is critically examined. Attention is also devoted to the weakness of domestic political opposition, threats from abroad, and the methods GCC states have employed to repress them. In the last section, the focus shifts to civil-military relations as the methods Gulf monarchies have developed to keep their armies loyal are assessed such as the creation of privileged units and forces, the fostering of institutional rivalries between various elements, and the exclusion of certain sectarian communities from security sector employment. In short, this chapter is devoted to institutional analysis and explores how political and structural factors impede the Gulf armies’ effectiveness.

Author(s):  
Florina Cristiana Matei ◽  
Carolyn Halladay

Civil–military relations—particularly the principles and practices of civilian control of the security sector—have changed significantly since the 1990s as more and more states around the world seek to consolidate democracy. The scholarly focus and the policy that it informs remain stuck in a mid-20th-century model, however. While civilian control remains central, this civilian oversight must, itself, uphold the requirements of democratic governance, ensuring that the uniformed forces are well integrated into the democracy that they are sworn to protect. Moreover, this democratic civilian control also must ensure the effectiveness of the security sector in the sense that soldiers, law enforcement officials, and intelligence agencies can fulfill the range of their missions. Thus, democratic civilian control requires ongoing attention from both the civilian and the military sides.


Author(s):  
Alexander Noyes

This chapter discusses the elements that influenced and constrained Security Sector Reform (SSR) in Zimbabwe during the country’s 2009 to 2013 power-sharing government period. The chapter argues that the Zimbabwe African National Union-Patriotic Front’s (ZANU-PF) historically rooted symbiotic links with the security sector and the regional solidarity politics of ZANU-PF’s ruling fellow African liberation struggle parties, greatly undermined SSR in Zimbabwe. Thabo Mbeki, of South Africa’s ruling African National Congress (ANC), an ostensibly ‘neutral’ mediator between ZANU-PF and opposition parties in the power-sharing talks, negotiated an agreement that lacked precise detail on the nature of SSR and how its implementation would be enforced. Coupled with ZANU-PF’s obstruction of attempts to delink the party from the security sector, and opposition parties’ lack of expertise in SSR issues and diplomacy, SSR faltered. The chapter further argues that in the absence of SSR, ZANU-PF was able to use the security sector to out-manoeuvre opposition parties in the power-sharing government and win the 2013 elections decisively. The failure of SSR in the power-sharing phase has had powerful consequences for civil–military relations after 2013. The security sector’s influence on politics mounted, culminating in the military staging a coup against president Robert Mugabe in 2017, which heightened the military’s political influence.


Author(s):  
Zoltan Barany

This chapter looks at two pivotal states of South Asia: India and Pakistan. India and Pakistan gained their independence in 1947. India succeeded in placing its armed forces under firm and virtually unchallenged state control right from the beginning of independence. However, civil–military relations in Pakistan have been far more “eventful.” The chapter makes three arguments. First and most important, by the end of the first postcolonial decade, the patterns for the drastically different military politics of India and Pakistan were already set. Second, of the numerous reasons for the evolution of different civil–military relations in the two countries, several lie in the circumstances of the 1947 Partition and in the immediate post-Partition period. Third, the British colonial period left behind profound legacies, most of which have positively influenced military affairs in the Subcontinent. The chapter also addresses Bangladesh—from its independence in 1971 to the military take-over in 2007—and what sets its military politics apart from Pakistan's.


Author(s):  
Smruti S. Pattanaik

In any nascent democracy, the military as an organized force is a dominant factor in politics. The nature of the relationship between different institutions, especially in fledgling democracies, decides the position of the military in the state. Compared to the political parties, the military is a cohesive force with a command structure that ensures orders are dutifully implemented. Often the military becomes part of contested politics and remains a dominant factor in countries that were previously under military rule. This could be for two reasons. First, their regime remains a reference point and is often compared to democratic regimes thereby creating a legitimacy factor. Second, the military is seen as savior and often portrayed as a fall-back option if a civilian system of governance is not able to deliver. Though many argue that military regimes are a thing of the past and their role is in fact in decline, this may not be true. Military institutions have adapted to change and the nature of their interactions with civilian groups has undergone a shift. However, use of coercion by military authority does not explain military dominance. Much is determined by the structural factors within which both the civil and military agents operate. In some cases, the military’s preserve is not only ensuring state “sovereignty” and its territorial integrity but also preventing a political catastrophe from happening during political transition. They are often referred to as guardians of the state. Study of civil–military relations in South Asia tends to follow a narrative that synthesizes and combines the structural and agency-related issues. Agency, however, is a dominant factor that waits for structurally enabling factors to contemplate a military takeover. In South Asia, and particularly in Bangladesh, any study of civil–military relations within the theoretical framework of a structure-agency divide is inadequate. Challenges in studying the structure-agency divide can be attributed to the larger-than-life image of the military agency. Military agents as actors, their political motives appear to be more important than the societal structure that influences decision. Social class, macroeconomic situations, the society-governing class interface, and lopsided institutional developments also shape the role of agencies (civil and military) and determine the balance of power. Absence of coup does not imply “civilian control,” but rather the civilian government’s ability to decide on posting, promoting, and shaping the vision of the military regarding threat perception determines the extent of civilian control over the military. Political culture, agreement within the society on political structure, institutional checks and balances, and political socialization are important aspects of state structure that acts a constraint on Agency’s action.


2021 ◽  
pp. 79-90
Author(s):  
Daniel N. Mlambo

Lesotho offers an exciting case study for the analysis of the interface between power, politics and instability. Since gaining its independence from Britain in 1966, Lesotho has over the last five decades been plagued by persistent political instability that has paved way for the breakdown of the rule of law, gross human rights violations, underdevelopment and insecurity where at times the security sector like the Lesotho Defence Force has taken over several key institutions in the country. Political instability in the tiny kingdom has been a daunting agenda for all concerned actors, including political parties, civil society, the Southern African Development Community (SADC) and other continental stakeholders. While the security sector of any state is of importance, it becomes problematic if it becomes involved in a state’s political affairs. The repercussions of such trajectories of governance have been quite profound for democratic stability and security. Using a qualitative methodology, supplemented by secondary data, this article seeks to unearth Lesotho’s political instability, the role of its security forces and continental actors in its continuous internal governance crisis post the colonial era. The article rightfully shows that The power, possessed by both the military and police, has made them have a robust role in state affairs rather than institutions, mandated to safeguard Lesotho’s citizens. The legitimacy of the security sector underpins restructuring, transparent and accessible security sectors enhance healthy civil-military relations. Restructuring a state’s security and political dynamic reforms is not an easy task, it requires a state managerial and dedication prowess and assistance from different role players and therefore an ample amount of time and effort is invested in the coordination of this process.


Author(s):  
Eric Hundman

Abstract Disobedience among military personnel is common and can be highly consequential, given the military's centrality to the conduct of foreign policy and war. Despite this, scholars of international affairs typically assume that subordinates in the military obey their orders. While scholarship on military politics acknowledges the prevalence of disobedience, it focuses on group-level forms of resistance and characterizes all such behavior as undesirable. Both of these analytical choices obscure the fact that individuals in the military can respond to orders they do not like in any number of ways. Building on existing work on civil–military relations and military decision-making, this article develops a novel conceptual typology of individual-level disobedience in military organizations. Drawing on dozens of diverse examples, it shows how such resistance is best categorized into four broad types: defiance, refinement, grudging obedience, and exit. Further, it demonstrates the advantages of adopting this typology. In particular, it highlights how military disobedience can be either disloyal or loyal; disobedience can be productive by fostering innovation, adaptability, or cohesion in military organizations. In addition to providing new variables for research on military politics, this typology also points to underexplored linkages between behaviors that have so far been studied separately, such as desertion, surrender, and mutiny. La désobéissance du personnel militaire est courante et peut avoir de lourdes conséquences selon la centralité de l'Armée dans la conduite de la politique étrangère et de la guerre. Malgré cela, les chercheurs en affaires internationales présupposent généralement que les subordonnés de l'Armée obéissent aux ordres qui leur sont donnés. Bien que les recherches sur la politique militaire admettent la prévalence de la désobéissance, ces dernières se concentrent sur les formes de résistance au niveau Groupes et caractérisent toutes un tel comportement comme indésirable. Ces deux choix analytiques obscurcissent le fait que les individus de l'Armée peuvent réagir aux ordres qui ne leur plaisent pas de bien des façons. Cet article s'appuie sur des travaux existants portant sur les relations entre civils et militaires et sur la prise de décisions militaires pour développer une nouvelle typologie conceptuelle de la désobéissance au niveau Individus dans les organisations militaires. Il s'inspire de dizaines d'exemples divers pour montrer à quel point il est préférable de classer une telle résistance en quatre grands types: Défiance, Peaufinement, Obéissance à contrecœur et Sortie de l'Armée. De plus, cet article montre les avantages qu'offre l'adoption de cette typologie. Il met en particulier en évidence la mesure dans laquelle la désobéissance militaire peut être soit loyale, soit déloyale; la désobéissance peut s'avérer productive lorsqu'elle encourage l'innovation, l'adaptabilité ou la cohésion dans les organisations militaires. En plus de fournir de nouvelles variables pour les recherches sur la politique militaire, cette typologie montre également des liens insuffisamment explorés entre des comportements qui ont jusqu'ici été étudiés séparément, tels que la désertion, l'abandon et la mutinerie. La desobediencia entre el personal militar es común y puede tener consecuencias de importancia debido al lugar central del ejército en la conducción de la política exterior y la guerra. A pesar de esto, los estudiosos de los asuntos internacionales suelen dar por sentado que los subordinados en el ejército obedecen las órdenes. Si bien los estudiosos de la política militar reconocen la prevalencia de la desobediencia, se centran en las formas de resistencia a nivel de grupo y caracterizan todo ese comportamiento como indeseable. Ambas opciones analíticas ocultan el hecho de que las personas en el ejército pueden responder de muchas maneras a las órdenes que no son de su agrado. A partir de trabajos existentes acerca de las relaciones cívico-militares y la toma de decisiones en el ejército, este artículo desarrolla una novedosa tipología conceptual de la desobediencia a nivel individual en las organizaciones militares. A través de numerosos ejemplos diversos, muestra cómo esa resistencia se clasifica mejor en cuatro categorías amplias: desafío, perfeccionamiento, obediencia de mala gana y retirada. Además, muestra las ventajas de adoptar esta categorización. En concreto, destaca cómo la desobediencia militar puede ser desleal o leal. Puede ser productiva al fomentar la innovación, la adaptabilidad o la cohesión en las organizaciones militares. Además de proporcionar nuevas variables para la investigación en materia de política militar, esta categorización también señala vínculos poco explorados entre comportamientos que hasta el momento se han estudiado por separado, como la deserción, la rendición y el motín.


Author(s):  
Simon A. Akindes

The Ivorian military remained confined to their barracks until December 24, 1999, when they staged a coup d’état. They had been instrumental in sustaining Félix Houphouët-Boigny’s rule, characterized by a deep culture of patronage in which they actively participated. After French colonialism used Ivorian soldiers in securing the territories they conquered, the Ivorian army, after its creation, became a pivotal element in the creation of the nascent Ivorian bourgeoisie, a class of planteurs (plantation owners) and entrepreneurs linked to the State. Houphouët-Boigny was unwilling to fund the army because he did not trust their loyalty to him. He preferred to focus on education, health, and infrastructure, arguing no external was threatening the country. As a consequence, the Ivorian military was neglected, poorly equipped, and inadequately trained. Complex relations have existed between the military, the ruling elites, and the state. In 1995, when the Baoulé elites and their new leader, Bédié, began losing their grip on power and faced competition from Northern elites that identified with Ouattara, they resorted to the dubious ideology of Ivoirité to consolidate their class position. The balance of power was shifting swiftly among ethnicized and competing members of ruling elites, ill-prepared to negotiate the fallout from their own instrumentalization of ethnicity, belonging, and autochthony for power. In 2002, a failed rebellion divided the country in two. The atrophied military could not assume their fundamental duties of keeping the country together. As militias, insurgencies, rebellions, and gangs mushroomed across the country and fought for a piece of the state, violence became their preferred strategy to advance political agendas until elections were organized in 2010. A situation of no war and no peace ensued until Laurent Gbagbo, who did not recognize his defeat, was removed from power by force in 2011. The French, with the assistance of the United Nations Operation in Côte d’Ivoire (UNOCI) in a semblance of multilateralism, intervened militarily to allow Ouattara’s troops to capture Gbagbo on April 1, 2011. Placed within a context of longue durée, an analysis is provided of how the long presence of the French military base and their experts and soldiers, under an agreement Houphouët-Boigny signed with the French government in 1961, has been a powerful deterrent and determinant of civil–military relations in Côte d’Ivoire, from independence in 1960 to the 2011 war. The presence of the French army, the Forces Nouvelles’ armed insurrection, and the weakness of the military have made possible the preservation of a “negative” peace, one that not only reshaped the class structure, but also enabled the preservation of the rentier state as the central institution in the creation and distribution of wealth. The loyalty of local ruling elites to French interests mattered significantly in the preservation of stable civil–military relations. As long as ethno-factions, political parties, and local elites are able to align their interests with powerful French interests, a semblance of stability will prevail and the military will continue exerting a reduced direct impact on Ivorian politics. As soon as that fragile equilibrium ruptures and a renewed internal struggle for primacy among ruling elites erupts, the country may descend into chaos, especially if the reconciliation process, engaged after Ouattara took power in 2011, does not yield tangible results, and if horizontal inequalities persist.


Author(s):  
Zoltan Barany

This chapter examines the democratization of civil–military relations in two former fascist dictatorships, postwar Germany and Japan, whose armies had destroyed and terrorized large swathes of the surrounding territory. The creation of lasting democratic regimes on the ashes of these dictatorships stands as the signal achievement of democracy promotion. An important part of this process was the building of the new West German and Japanese armed forces. On the other hand, Hungary after World War II illustrates the trajectory of military politics in numerous European states where domestic political forces were defeated by the Soviet Union and its native communist puppets. The chapter then considers the evolution of Hungarian civil–military relations from the end of the war until the March 1953 death of Joseph Stalin, which is a suitable point to mark the consolidation of the Soviet-controlled communist regime and the completion of the armed forces' transformation.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document