State’s soldier or soldier’s state: A glance at civil-military relations theory

Abstract

A country can be regarded as a democratic one within its encompassing approach to human rights, political participation, equality among its citizens, rule of law and freedoms such as speech, thinking and practices of all them. To this list, robust and consistent civil-military relations can be added. Military in a country has a noble and alturistic task to defend its country against internal and external threats. To accomplish this task, the civil-military relations should be treated and maintained carefully by related actors in favour of the nation. As Gregory Foster claims, when this relationship deteroriates, common benefit of political cadres and military staff which is protection and security also fails. A country’s cultural and historical background can give reasons to the armed forces to intervine into politics. The military officers may act as if they are politicians and real guardians of the nation. Sometimes, the comrade spirit among themselves can trigger the processes of the coup d’etats or bitter military interventions. However, whatever the reason is these military involvement in politics cannot be tolerated and permitted. So, democratic mechanisms must be well-designed, smoothly working and protected by the state actors in order to maintain the rule of the civilians in a country. The literature of civil-military relations serves us to deepen our notion to understand how military should act and limit its involvement in its intervention into politics in a country. Besisdes, this literature enables us to understand how civilians implement their supremacy over the military. This article aims to define to the civil-military relations theory and clarify its nature and also illustrate the dangers of the military’s tutelary power in a democratic country.