THE MILITARY ISSUES
• No government can exist without the presence of “It is a mistake to view the military as a single,
their military
• The government is the only institution that has the
legitimate use of force. This legitimacy in using
force is exercised by the military and the police
(Exercise of Coercive Power)
• Functions of military (in passing)
Instruments of foreign policy
Stop civil unrest
May operate as powerful interest groups
Alternative to civilian rule
• Functions of police
Means of maintaining public order and civil liberty
Mechanism of political repression that may lead to the
establishment of a police state
• Question:
How these forces may be controlled and held
accountable given their power?
HISTORY
“The development of modern
armed forces can be traced back to the period following
the Middle Ages when European powers started to develop
a standardized form of military organization, usually based
on a standing army.” (p. 402)
MILITARY VS OTHER INSTITUTIONS
The military is a political institution of a very particular
kind. Four factors distinguish the military from other
institutions and give it a distinct advantage over civilian
organizations.
1. Instrument of war. the military enjoys a virtual
monopoly of weaponry and substantial coercive power. As
the military has the capacity to prop up or topple a regime,
its loyalty is essential to state survival.
2. Tightly organized and highly disciplined bodies
characterized by a hierarchy of ranks and a culture of strict
obedience. This gives the military an unusual degree of
organizational effectiveness, although it could also breed
inflexibility and discourage initiative and innovation
3. Distinctive culture and set of values and an esprit de
corpse that prepare its personnel to fight kill and possibly
die. Sometimes portrayed as implicitly right-wing and
deeply authoritarian (by virtue of its traditional emphasis
on leadership, duty and honor), military culture can also be
grounded in creeds as such as revolutionary socialism (as
in China) or Islamic fundamentalism (as in Iran)
4. Regarded as “above politics” in the sense that, because
they guarantee the security and integrity of the state, they
are the repository of national interest. This secures for
most militaries a special and respect, but it may also
incline the military to intervene in politics, particularly
when, in its view, vital national interests are under threat
cohesive institution with common
political features in all societies.”
1. Divisions within the military may stem from various
sources. For example, conflicts may develop between
broadly conservative senior officers, often recruited from
elite backgrounds, and more junior officers, who may be
either impatient for promotion or more open to
progressive or radical ideas. Rivalry and competition for
prestige and scarce resources may also divide the various
services and units within the military, while regional or
ethnic divisions can also be significant.
“The character of particular armed force is shaped by
internal and external factors.”
2. These include the history and traditions of the military
and specific regiments or units, and the nature of the
broader political system, the political culture and the
values of the regime itself. For example, the political
orientation of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in China
is deeply influenced by the decisive role it played in
establishing the communist regime in 1949 and by strict
party control at every level of the Chinese military. In
Israel, the military enjoys an unusual position of trust and
respect, based on its role in absorbing and socializing
immigrants, and on its records of safeguarding the security
of the Israeli state.
“It is difficult to generalize about the nature and
significance of the military because of the very
different roles that the military can play in political
life.”
FOUR FACTORS THAT DISTINGUISHES MILITARY
INSTUTUTION FROM OTHER INSTITUTIONS
3. The most important of these are the following: (1) an
instrument of war; (2) a guarantee of political order and
stability; (3) an interest group; (4) an alternative to civilian
rule
1. Instrument of War
The central purpose of the military is to serve as an
instrument of war that can be directed against other
political societies if necessary. Crucially, however, the
armed forces can be put to either defensive or offensive
uses. It is the capacity of the military to defend the country
against external aggression that ensures that practically all
countries have armed forces. On the one hand, the armed
forces must be powerful enough to at least match the
might of likely aggressors and, preferably, deter aggression
in the first place. Not uncommonly, such calculations have
led to arms races and resulted in war, as defensive
buildups have created international tension by appearing
to neighboring states to constitute an offensive threat.
When armed forces are used to pursue offensive or
expansionist ends, the military becomes substantially
more important. To wage war against other states requires
both that the military is able and willing to act as an agent
of aggression and that its offensive actions enjoy a
significant measure of public support.

2. Guarantee of Domestic Order
One of the least controversial nonmilitary tasks that armed
forces may be called upon to undertake is to act as an
emergency service in the event of natural and other
disasters. In the UK in 1970s and 1980s, for instance, the
army was brought in during industrial disputes to provide
emergency fire and ambulance services. Such actions
provoked criticism, not only because the military is used in
ways that encroach on responsibilities that usually belong
to the police, but also because they comprise the
traditional neutrality of the armed forces. This highlights
the difficulty of distinguishing between the domestic use of
military as a public instrument serving the national
interest and its use as a political weapon furthering the
partisan goals of the government of the day. In cases in
which political legitimacy has collapsed altogether, the
military may become the only prop of the regime,
safeguarding it from popular rebellion or revolution. When
this occurs, however, all semblance of constitutionalism
and consent is abandoned as the government becomes an
outright dictatorship.
3. Interest Group – govt can achieve their foreign and
domestic ends since the military serves as an
instrument of policy
The military has been seen above largely as an instrument
of policy: that is, as a device through which governments
can achieve their foreign or domestic ends. However,
armed forces are not neutral bodies that have no interest
in the policy uses to which they are put. Rather, like
bureaucracies, militaries can act as interest groups that
seek to shape or influence the content of policy itself. In
this respect, the military has a number of clear advantages:
1. it possesses considerable technical
knowledge and expertise.
- it would be difficult for governments not
to listen to, and often heed the advice of senior members of
the military on strategic, defense, and broader foreign
policy matters.
2. the military is an insider group in the sense that
it is represented on key policy-making bodies and so
possesses an institutional power base
3. The military benefits from its status as the
guarantor of national security and state integrity, and from
the significance the public normally attaches to the issue of
defense
It is possible to argue that the senior military is likely to
push policies that enhance the size and status of the armed
forces, or guarantee their independence. This view sees the
military as a lobby group that campaigns mainly for an
increase in the military budget or as a series of rival
services or units that struggle for the largest possible cut of
the defense cake. The armed forces are aided in this by a
number of powerful allies referred to as the military-
industrial complex.
3. Military-Industrial Complex
“A symbiotic relationship between the armed forces and
defense industries, based on a common desire to increase
military spending.”
4. Alternative to Civilian Rule
The defining feature of military rule is that members of the
armed forces displace civilian politicians, meaning that the
leading posts in government are filled on the basis of the
person’s position within the military chain of command.
The control of weaponry and coercive power gives the
military the capacity to intervene directly in political life,
leading in extreme cases to the establishment of military
rule. The defining feature of military rule is that members
of the armed forces displace civilian politicians, meaning
that the leading posts in government are filled on the basis
of the person’s position within the military chain of
command.
It is difficult however for military rule to exists in a stable
and enduring political form. While military leaders may
highlight the chronic weakness, intractable divisions and
endemic corruption of civilian government, it is unlikely
that the military rule will provide a solution to these
problems or that it will be perceived as legitimate, except
during temporary periods of national crisis of political
emergency. That is why military regimes are characterized
by the suspension of civil liberties and the suppression of
all potential sources of popular involvement in politics.
Protest and demonstrations are curtailed, opposition
political parties and trade unions are banned, and the
media are subjected to strict censorship.
Military Junta: A form of collective military government
centered on a command council of officers whose
members usually represent the three services (the army,
the navy, and the air force).
Military dictatorship emerges as a single individual gains
preeminence within the junta.
Military regimes are characterized by the suspension of
civil liberties and the suppression of all potential
sources of popular involvement in politics. Protests and
demonstrations are curtailed, opposition political parties
and trade unions are banned, and the media are subjected
to strict censorship.
Controlling the Military
The mechanisms and methods through which political
control is exerted have been classified broadly into two
types. Samuel Huntington (1957) described these as
objective and subjective methods, while Eric Nordlinger
(1977) used the terms liberal and penetration
Liberal Model of Civil-Military Relations
Western Liberal Countries
The chief feature of this form of control is that there is a
clear division between political and military roles and
responsibilities ; quite simply, the military is kept out of
politics. This is achieved in a number of ways:
1. the military is formally subordinate to civilian
leaders, who are usually accountable to an assembly or the
public
2. policy-making, even in defense and military
realms, is the responsibility of civilian politicians, the
military being required merely to offer an advise and to
take charge of implementation. It also does not
have the authority to challenge decisions made by civilian
leaders.
3. strict political neutrality within the armed
forces, ensuring that they will remain loyal regardless of
the party or government that is in power
Penetration/ Subjective Method
Employed in dictatorial or one-party state
The military is controlled by subjective methods that bind
it to the civilian leadership by imbuing it with the
leadership’s values and ideals
Whereas the liberal model operates through the exclusion
of the armed forces from politics, the penetration model
uses the opposite approach of systemic and
throroughgoing politicization
How is this achieved?
1. You take away the unreliable military members
2. Use propaganda to make the military believe
you
- for example, the Iraqi army, especially
since Saddam Hussein assumed power in 1979, has been
infused by the pan-Arab nationalism of the
Ba’ath party. Ba’athism is committed to the
unification of the Araba nation and to freeing it from
Western imperialism. These goals provided an
ideological justification for the invasion of Iran in
1980 and the annexation of Kuwait in 1990
When does the military seize power?
The most dramatic political manifestation of the power of
the armed forces is, of course, the removal of a civilian
government through a military coup d’etat. The military
can seize power either to displace the civilian leadership
and establish a form of direct military rule, or to replace
one set of civilian leaders by another through whom it is
able to rule indirectly. The military coups thus becomes
the principal device for bringing about the transition of
government power from one group of leaders to the next.
Military coups appear to be associated with particular
circumstances. The most significant of these are the
following: CIRCUMSTANCES ASSOCIATED WITH
MILITARY COUP D’ETAT
1. Economic Backwardness
Widespread poverty and deep social inequality are clearly
of significance in that they weaken support for the
incumbent government and provide the military with a
pretext for stepping in with a promise to deliver economic
development
2. Loss of legitimacy by civilian rulers
The military is likely to intervene when it senses that the
legitimacy of existing institutions and the ruling elite is
challenged, and when it calculates that its intervention is
going to be successful
3. conflict between the military and the
government
The third factor associated with military intervention is
the degree to which the values, goals and interests of the
armed forces differ from those of the broader regime.
When militaries move against governments, they do so
either because they believe that their interests and values
are threatened or because they think that their actions are
justified. Military coups are often an attempt to preserve
the privileges, independence and prestige of the armed
forces, or they may be a vehicle for the pursuit of political
ambition.
4. a favorable international context
In some cases, international pressures undoubtedly
encourage military actions. In other occasions, the
prospect of an adverse diplomatic reaction has
discouraged military plotters. But it would be wrong to
overstate the sensitivity of military regimes to diplomatic
pressure, as in the case of Saddam Hussein.
THE POLICE
Central purpose: to maintain domestic order
VS MILITARY
The police has a routine and everyday involvement in
public life
More closely integrated into society than the military:
members and their families usually live in the communities
in which they work
Typically use nonmilitary tactics because of their reliance
on at least a measure of consent and legitimacy, they are
either usually unarmed or their arms are primarily a form
of self-defence
Roles of the police
Liberal: police as an essentially neutral body, the purpose
of which is to maintain domesic order through the
protection of individual rights and liberties. Police force
operate within a broad consensus and enjoy a high
measure of legitimacy, based on the perception that
policing promotes social stability and personal security
Conservative: stresses the police’s role in preserving the
authority of the state and ensuring that its jurisdiction
extends throughout the community. Emphasizes the
importance of the police as an enforcement agency capable
of controlling social unrest and civil disorder.
Radical: portrays police forces as tools of oppression that
act in the interests of the state rather than of the people,
and serve elites rather than the masses
Civil policing
Role of the police in the enforcement of criminal law. The
police force exists to “fight crime”
Community policing: a constant police presence within the
community to ensure public cooperation and support in
the investigation of crimes and to encourage the
development of values and attitudes that help to prevent
law breaking in the first place
Fire-brigade policing or reactive policing: emphasizes
the capacity of the police to react to breaches of law when
they occur, in the hope that crime will be prevented by the
effectiveness of police response
The key factor in determining where the balance lies
between accountability and politicization in practice is
whether the police force is organized on a centralized or
decentralized basis.
Decentralized: a bottom-up structure allows the police a
healthy independence from central government whilst
building in responsiveness to local needs and interests
Centralized: meets the needs of national governments and
holds out the prospect of greater administrative efficiency
and increased police effectiveness.

Political policing
The use of the police as a political rather than civil
instirument

Policing can be “political” in two senses:

1. policing may be carried out in accordance with political
biases or social prejudices that favour certain groups or
interests over others
2. policing may extend beyond civil matters and impact on
specifically political disputes

Challenge to the distinction between civil and political

areas of police work:
>All crime is political in the sense that it springs from the
distribution of wealth, power and other resources in
society, all policing is political because it defends the
prevailing distribution of resources
>Neutrality of the police force in the eyes of the public is
compromised when it is used to control strikes,
demonstrations and civil unrest that stem from deep
divisions in society
>Police as over militarized and insensitive to the interests
of the minority ethnic communities

Police state
A form of rule which the liberal balance between police
powers and civil liberties has been entirely abandoned,
allowing a system of arbitrary and indiscriminate policing
to develop. The police therefore operates outside a legal
framework and is accountable to neither the courts nor the
general public
Totalitarian feature: the excessive and unregulated power
that is vested in the police is designed to create a climate of
fear and intimidation in which all aspects of social
existence are brought under political control

Unlike the military, the police force doesn’t run the state. it
instead acts as a private army that is controlled by and acts
in the interests of a ruling elite.

Who will guard the Guardians? – Aristotle

Positive: suggests accountability, oversight and scrutiny, a
police force constrained by and loyal to properly instituted
authority
Negative: implies politicization and the possibility of police
power being harnessed to the needs of the government of
the day