Military Intervention In Politics Research Articles

Objective African Military Control* A New Paradigm in Civil-Military Relations

Contemporary studies of African Civil-Military Relations have shown that more than 50 % of the African states have undergone one or more successful or abortive military coups. A number of theories have been proposed to explain Civil-Military Relations. The purpose of this paper is to test Huntington's theory of Objective Civilian Control with respect to Civilian-Military Relations in modern Africa. Following a brief overview of African Civil- Military Relations and focus on the question of who controls whom, the paper poses the same question relative to non-African Civil-Military Relations. In a more extensive, in-depth case study of Nigeria, the paper seeks to examine the level and source of military profes sionalism, whether or not Nigeria has ever been free of military intervention in its political process because of its high level of professionalism, and whether Huntington's argument has any validity. In addition, the role of the African military in Nigeria as a paradigm in African Civilian-Military Relations is examined by discussing when and why Nigeria achieved her nationhood, the causes and consequences of military intervention and the level of Nigerian military professionalism, the role of the military and the Civil War, and why professionalism is not a reliable deterrent to military intervention in politics. This discussion illustrates the fallacy of most assumptions in the Civil-Military Relations literature today. The paper concludes that Huntington's assumption that non-military intervention is a function of civilian encouragement of military professionalism and professionalization is spurious. Based on the Nigeran case study and cross-national observations, the data show that a high degree of professionalism and professionalization is not a reliable deterrent against African military activism and intervention in civilian affairs. The data support the findings that professionalization of the military alone would not deter the military from intervening unless it is accompanied by the military's complete satisfaction with civilian control. Without this satisfaction, the military establishment is likely to challenge and possibly remove the civilian control whenever the military is disenchanted with or envious of civilian rule. Drawing from studies on political anthropology, it is sound to say that African military intervention is normal and one of the fundamental aspects of African tradi tional Warriorism. In the final analysis, Objective Military Control is not unique to Africa. It is a universal political phenomenon in Civil-Military Relations today.

Institutionalization and Political Development: A Conceptual and Theoretical Analysis

In recent years, institutionalization has become one of the key concepts in comparative politics in general, and in the study of political development in particular. This elegant and almost geometrically tidy theory of political order best articulated by Huntington has been acclaimed as a major new school, one that will be able perhaps to narrow what La Palombara called the ‘widening chasm’ between ‘macrotheories and microapplications in comparative politics’. Indeed, Huntington in his book attempted to apply his theoretical tenets to the analysis of such important phenomena as military intervention in politics, corruption and violence, all this via the usage of a few major variables. In the notoriously slippery field of theorizing in comparative politics, this constituted a welcome influx of fresh air. No wonder, then, that Huntington's theory and concepts have been widely prevalent and frequently referred to—again a relative innovation in the easy-come-easy-go world of theories in the study of political development.

The Study of Argentine Politics Through Survey Research

What causes a country that has experienced exceptionally high growth rates and living standards to stagnate with only poor and uneven economic advance, especially after it has achieved one of the lowest rates of population growth among the American republics? What forces lead to the intensification of civil violence and conflict among social and occupational groups, encouraging a pattern of military intervention in politics? What impact do patriotism, popular perceptions of leaders' decisions, and a sense of political legitimacy have upon these processes of economic growth and group conflict, and what kinds of leadership can best utilize appeals to constructive nationalism and self-sacrifice in order to promote growth and reduce conflict? Do long periods of frustrated expectations and economic stagnation tend to give citizens patterns of attitudes and behavior that make conflict more likely and growth more difficult?

The Rise of Modern Militarism in Argentina

WXC HEP;N IN 1930 factions of the army overthrew the Radical regime of Hipolito Yrigoyen, the action marked the emergence of modern militarism in Argentina. Modern Argentine militarism is distinguished from previous military intervention in politics by the fact that since 1930 professional army officers rather than civilian politicians have exercised revolutionary leadership. Prior to that date the Argentine army or factions thereof had served as the necessary instruments of force in attempts by civilian political leaders to overthrow the constituted authorities.1 With the revolution of 1930 army officers began to initiate, plan, and lead military conspiracies. Furthermore, rebel army leaders now aspired to rule Argentina in the aftermath of military revolution. The revolution of 1930 is generally viewed as the event which launched Argentina on the tortuous path of modern militarism and chronic instability. There has been a tendency to neglect the important fact that the revolution was the culmination as well as the inauguration of a significant political process in Argentina. Modern militarism did not suddenly emerge like a new volcano on the Argentine political scene. It was the product of institutional and political trends which began many years before the revolution of 1930. The striking characteristic of modern Argentine militarism is that it evolved in one of the most highly professionalized armies in Latin America. For those who believe that military professionalization is an antidote to militarism, the Argentine case offers serious doubts. By professionalization is meant the formation of a technically trained army officer corps comprised of paid career men dedicated solely to professional matters. This objective necessitated the establishment of academies for advanced training in modern methods and weaponry alone with the adoption of objective criteria for promotion based on

Toward Explaining Military Intervention in Latin American Politics

Military intervention in politics is extremely common. Outside the North Atlantic area, the armed forces are more likely than not to be among the most important power contenders in any political system, and military regimes are at least as widespread as either totalitarian or democratic ones. It is surprising, therefore, that until recently this phenomenon has attracted little attention from students of politics. Though there has been some speculation about the causes of military intervention, our actual knowledge of the subject is meager indeed.