The Military and Politics: A Review Article

Abstract

One of the most profound developments in late twentieth century politics is the emergence of the military as important political elites and critical political actors. This has signified a trend towards increasingly authoritarian and restricted governments, part of a movement in the Third World as a whole away from both pluralistic party politics and militantly nationalist regimes. In the countries where the military has taken over political power, the apparatus of the state is controlled directly or indirectly by the military establishment: military officers are the key leaders and civilian institutions are subordinated, if not altogether eliminated. While there are academic debates and disputes regarding the nature of military rule and its effects on society, there is, however, a general consensus that weak and ineffective civilian political institutions have directly contributed to military involvement in politics. When civilian leaders fail to legitimize their governmental authority in a sustainable manner through the creation and development of political institutions capable of aggregating the interests of the masses, fragmentation takes place within society. What emerges is a praetorian society1 where, because of the absence of unifying orientation, there is no con sensus regarding who should be the legitimate authority to allocate the resources, as well as concerning the methods of resolving conflicts within the society. In such a situation, a strong government may appear to the people as more attractive as it provides a welcome relief from social and political chaos. Thus, when the military intervenes, it intervenes in lieu of other social forces or as a substitute for social forces which do not exist.2 The wish to enjoy the benefits of political power, although existing within the military of most Third World countries, is not the only explanation for such a phenomenon. Another reason is the fact that the military is the only organized group which is not fragmented socially and politically, and which also possesses the means of violence and arbitrary force. In most cases, military intervention is preceded by the growth of factionalism within the civilian political elites, and breakdown of civilian political structures and constitutional means to conduct