Definitions: Before we start to investigate this research, it becomes imperative to understand the prevailing literal, formal and informal definitions of the terminologies that this study concentrates upon.
s
3.1.1 Democracy: The literal definition of Democracy, as according to the Compact Oxford Dictionary, is,"1. a form of government in which the people have a voice in the exercise of power, typically through elected representatives. 2. a state governed in such a way. 3. Control of a group by the majority of its members." [1] But in the current context and ongoing trends, meaning of democracy cannot just be confined to these literal meanings. With the innovation of the democratic systems, evolution in its nature, characteristics, complexity and methods of practice has come a long way. What now may be perceived as dictatorship, were in fact considered democracy during the Prehistoric days when concept of democracy were just beginning to shape up.
Greek Democracies of the 6th and 7th centuries were more often than not direct in nature i.e. the people voted for or against any new rules and laws conceived. The Magna Carta signed in England in the 11th century between the king and the barons of the country influenced the democratic norms and traditions that are followed in democracies of today and can be regarded as a foundation for the modern democracy. Trends have changed. Many modern democracies now have representatives of the people elected by the people who are responsible for making and implementing the laws, rules and regulations- known as the Parliament. Democracy has also been perceived as accordingly to ones priority/perception by various individuals/groups. However, this thesis will not focus on perceptions, rather, derive conclusions.
3.1.2 Armed Forces: According to Microsoft Encarta's dictionary, the definition of the Armed Forces is explained as, "the combined bodies of troops of a country, who fight on land, at sea, or in the air" [2] Basically, the armed forces consists of only the Military, Navy and the Air Force whose primary role is to protect the Nation from external threats. In some countries, paramilitary forces like the Armed Police Force and the Border Security Force are also included within the Armed Forces. However, the Armed Forces does not include regular Police agencies i.e. the police departments of a state that are authorized to exercise the police power of a state within a defined legal or territorial area of responsibility. This research has therefore totally excluded investigating the roles and other aspects of the policing forces and just deals with the study of the Military forces.
The great Military strategist Sun Tzu in his book The Art of War has stated "The art of war is of vital importance to the State. It is a matter of life and death, a road either to safety or to ruin. Hence it is a subject of inquiry which can on no account be neglected." [3] Since warfare could never have been neglected from the origins of the intelligent human beings, the primary participants of warfare, i.e. the Armed Forces have been in existence from primitive eras.
3.1.3 Historically, the creation of armed forces (army, to be precise) [4] was initiated by the "strong one" possessing leadership qualities (who later became rulers) for the main cause of maximizing his power and territory (which later led to the creation of Nations). Most of these rulers, with strong support from the Military, ruled the Nation unilaterally, most often, even tyrannically. These historical close relations between the armed forces and tyrants have to great context contributed in escalating the belief of armed forces opposing democracy. However, it should also be kept in mind that tyrants and dictator of the ancient periods did not carry the negative connotation that these terms carry in the modern era. In ancient Greece and Rome, a dictator or tyrant was a ruler who necessarily may not be harsh and cruel who placed his or her own interests or the interests of a small oligarchy over the best interests of the general population which the tyrant/dictator governed or controlled. The Constructive and adverse interrelations between Democracy and the Armed Forces in various epochs of world History will be elaborately studied in the third chapter.
Various Methods and Practices of Democracy:
Various researchers and scholars have classified democracy accordingly. However, orthodox political science has classified democracy into two main branches namely Direct Democracy and Indirect Democracy. As the name suggests, the main differences between these two democracies are the procedures by which the Government is run by the people. Modern Political Scientists tend to further categorize Democracy into Delegative Democracy /Semi Direct Democracy.
3.2.1 Direct Democracy: Direct democracy is considered by many to be the purest form of democracy and is also popularly known as "pure" democracy. This form of democracy, as the name suggest, follows the procedures in which democracy is directly practiced by the people. The role of citizens in drafting, approving and authorizing rules and laws of the country is optimum. The extent of their participation becomes vital. Direct Democracy incorporates the form of a Government based on the theory that all willing citizens can directly participate in the decision making process. Depending on the system of governance, all citizens are allowed to participate in the decision making process regarding judiciary, legislative and executive powers. Historically, the first form of systematically practiced democracy during the 5th century BC was a form of Direct democracy in Athens. The Athenian democracy consisted of assemblies of people who were chosen from among the citizens.
In the modern context, direct democracy is exclusively practiced in Switzerland and some states of the USA [5] . Switzerland has a long tradition of Direct Democracy and can be traced back to the late middle ages. Assemblies of electorates discussing and deciding major political issues have been practiced in parts of Switzerland since the foundation of the Old Swiss Confederacy in 1921. However, the origins of Switzerland's modern system of Direct Democracy with formalized opinion polls and frequent referendums lie in the experimental phase of democracy of the 19th Century when Switzerland was surrounded by Monarchies on the European continent that possessed little regards and enthusiasm for democracy.
3.2.2 Indirect Democracy: "In that it is both an aspect of electoral behavior and a mechanism for determining the Government's responsiveness to the public representation has acquired the status of a democratic institution in political science. This despite the fact that political representation is not associated exclusively with democracy (it predates modern democratic steps and exists in states that are not democratic); in fact, its relation to democracy is permanently subject to debate" (Urbinati, 2006).
In indirect democracy, legislative, judiciary and executive decisions (depending on the system of Governance) affecting the lives of the citizens of a Nation are made not by the citizens themselves but by certain individuals representing the citizens who are elected by the citizens for their purpose. Therefore, this type of democracy is also more popularly known by the name "representative" democracy. Laws and rules are drafted by the citizen elect representatives. Most modern democracies today follow this form of democratic governance. Indirect democracy is based on the theories that,
The representatives or the officials elected by the people will make the Government carry out those courses of actions that they promised the citizens on the basis of which they were able to win the elections.
The elected representatives will always reflect the values, desires and goals of the general public who elected them in the course of their decisions, the result of which, no further supervision is required by the citizens over their actions and decisions.
On the basis of above mentioned points, the elected government officials who represent the people must always put their personal values, desires, objectives and goals far behind the wishes and desires of the citizens who elected them for indirect democracy to function the way it is intended to. In the absence of these characteristics, or rather roles to be portrayed by the elected representatives, indirect democracy fails because the assumptions upon which it is based no longer are effective in controlling and directing the Government policies and decisions.
3.2.3 Delegative Democracy: Apart from the aforementioned Direct and Indirect democracies, there is another form of democracy by the name of Delegative democracy. In this type of democracies, delegates are elected/ selected by the people and are anticipated to carry out Governance as per the wishes of the constituencies. The failure of the elected delegate to act in the interest of the constituency empowers the constituency to recall the delegate at any time. Representatives are expected to only transmit the decisions of the electors, advance their views and if they fail to do so, they will be subjected to immediate representative recall with minimal process. A Delegative system imposes no specific limit on the total number of representatives which are referred to as 'delegates' and to facilitate direct relationships with voters each delegate ideally represent only tens or at most a few hundred voters rather than thousands or ten thousands. Furthermore, voters are not forced to compete with each other for representation within any kind of predefined districts or constituencies, instead each voters choice of delegate is essentially unrestricted across the entire breadth of the Organizations and this choice acts as a direct transfer or delegation of power, hence the name Delegative democracy. " [6]
3.3 Historical Perspective of development of statehood, democracy and armed force
The earliest forms of the state emerged whenever it became possible to centralize power in a durable way. Agriculture and writing are almost everywhere associated with this process. Agriculture allowed for the production and storing of surplus. This in turn allowed and encouraged the emergence of a class of people who controlled and protected the agricultural stores and thus did not have to spend most of their time providing for their own subsistence (Giddens, 1987, 310).
Some political philosophers believe the origins of the state lie ultimately in the tribal culture which developed with human sentience, the template for which was the alleged primal "alpha-male" micro societies of our earlier ancestors, which were based on the coercion of the weak by the strong. However anthropologists point out that extant band- and tribe-level societies are notable for their lack of centralized authority, and that highly stratified societies i.e., states constitute a relatively recent break with the course of human history (Boehm, 1999).
In the history of the state in the West typically begin with classical antiquity. in that amount, state forms, none of which ar very like the fashionable state has taken a range of. there have been powerful states (like Egyptian Pharaohs) spiritual role of the king and the army on the basis of a central control was. there have been conjointly massive semi-bureaucratic empires just like the Roman Empire, the ruling military organizations more practical, legal and stability depend less on spiritual ceremonies of different tribes.
Greek city - states and the republic in times of yore, perhaps the most vital innovations of the political.
On the opposite hand, may be a autarchy dominated by the Senate, which is dominated by elite republic into Rome. Roman law, and constitutional distinction between non-public and public sector have contributed to the event of the social group. The story of the event of the fashionable state in the West and notably usually begins with the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. The non-public men and decentralised political, judicial and military roles consistent with the organization of economic production in the hands has light-emitting diode to the dissolution of the New York State. In these circumstances, the economic unit of society is fully compatible with the state at the native level.
3.4 Beginning of democratic practices and Brief description of growing acceptance of democracy and its impact on the military chain of command.
The history of democracy has already been discussed in earlier chapters. In this segment, we will be discussing the evolution of democracy along with the armed forces in the global scenario.
Throughout most of the 18th century, the armies of Europe were built on an aristocratic model [i] . Standing armies of the crown, they were officered by the members of nobility, manifesting an integration of political and military elites. Elite integration worked to ensure the loyalty of the army to the crown as shared ties of land, family and ideology forged an identity of interests between the Military and the ruling class and brought about a "blending of the management of military and civil affairs." (Janowitz, 1977)
However, the military was not as yet regarded as a national institution. It was more of a dynastic institution under the control of the crown. By the end of the 18th century, this aristocratic model of military organization was challenged by another, borne of the democratic revolutions in America and France. The new revolutionary democratic model rested on an identification of the Military with free citizens who served as citizen soldiers and were inspired by "national enthusiasm and democratic ideas of liberty." Like most revolutionary challenges, this one was not completely new but found precedent in past practices, nor was it completely triumphant over the aristocratic model as soon as it appeared.
The roots of the democratic model were sunk deep in the soil of ancient thought and practice in the city states of Greece and Rome. Vivid in 18th century enlightenment thought was the idea that those ancient republics drew strength from the strength of male citizens to bear arms in their defense -and the republics collapsed when the willingness waned. Based on this ancient example and drawing on an early intimation that the state was a national political community, theories began to consider the idea that all men who belonged to the community were citizens who were obligated to perform military services when called upon by the state. Still this was an idea that had little direct application before the American and French Revolutions, though militia systems in colonial North America and Europe helped preserve the idea of a community based military obligation.
What the American and French revolutions effectively established was a format for a mass armed force based on the mobilization of citizens for military service. It conceived of the citizen soldier as an individual ideal and of the nation of citizen soldiers as a nation in arms. In the minds of many revolutionaries, the principle of universal obligatory military service by citizens was consistent with even an embodiment of a democratic regime. The institution of conscription was the primary means by which this principle was implemented in practice. Conscription was a practical and not a theoretical requirement. Initially, compulsion was used to make citizens perform their military obligations only after volunteering to fight in war had flagged, demonstrating that national enthusiasm and patriotic sentiments were not enough by themselves to raise a military force of the size political elites believed was needed. Yet, even when compelled, coupling civil and military obligations help align state and individual interests as military service built "a stronger awareness of national community."
3.5 Evolution of democracy and interrelation with the armed forces.
By its very nature a possible military threat to democracy, however democracy is well established civilian domination has been usually maintained, though there ar dangers of excessive military influence. Mature political cultures like the u. s., is that the threat of the military complex. Japan, Germany, France, or currently have become mature political cultures, and Russia (New during this category), despite its many problems, isn't vulnerable by direct military intervention. at first classified within the political culture of many countries have gone moderate political culture, and despite some notable exceptions to the military government have become more cautious about taking responsibility.
Edmund Burke once observed that "an armed, disciplined body is, in its essence, dangerous to liberty" (Kemp and Hudlin, 1992). In fact, at first look, the potential conflict between democracy and therefore the army looks to be too obvious. If we outline democracy as a form of government, essentially promote individual freedom and military organization based on strict discipline and level, contrastive. In addition, the civilians in the conflict between the elite and therefore the military leaders looks to be inevitable, the former needs unscrupulous than different blessings.
Then, the core issue is however defenseless elite exist armed elite, to travel a step more, whether or not this relationship could are in the recent important amendment. This sub-chapter is especially concerned regarding the link between democracy and also the armed forces, civil-military relations, together with the total range of soldiers and civilian authorities totally discussed here. However, civil-military relations is not solely totally developed democracies, however in developing countries, the role of the military is attempting to, or doubtless willing to experiment with democracy during this chapter.
Given Samuel E Finer's pertinent question, why does the military ever refrain from political intervention, it makes sense to adopt his framework to explore the nature of civil-military relations in order to discover whether change has occurred since he posed this question in the early 1960s. His approach does, indeed, explicitly allow for changes to happen. Moreover, what has made Finer's book, The Man on Horseback, the seminal study it has become, is his observation that it is not only a disposition within the military to intervene in politics, but also an opportunity to do so, which are required for intervention to succeed. Only if civilian regimes provide the space for soldiers to assert themselves or, in the case of unstable polities, suffer from a significant legitimacy deficit, that is, if they have not solved the problems plaguing the country to the satisfaction not only of the soldiers, but the general citizenry and vital elite groups as well, can a military coup group survive beyond the initial seizure of the presidential palace, the parliament house, the radio station and other extremely necessary infrastructures of a Nation? Huntington also confirms that coups can only succeed if "systemic failure" provides the opportunity to stage a coup. He categorically asserts that "the most important causes of military intervention in politics are not military but political and reflect not the social and organizational characteristics of the military establishment but the political and institutional structure of the society". (Huntington, 1968)
Legitimacy is most firmly established in older states, which have had centuries to build the institutions which suited their political culture, but new states have to do this in a hurry. So, to put the problem of military intervention into its proper perspective requires following Finer's threefold categorisation. He clearly distinguishes between perfectly functioning, established democracies, which he calls Mature Political Cultures, in which legitimacy is "paramount" and therefore "unobtainable" for those attempting a military coup; Developed Political Cultures in which legitimacy is "important and resistive" to military coup makers; and Low or Minimal Political Cultures in which the question of legitimacy may be "of some importance" or completely "unimportant". (Finer, 1955)
Obviously, military intervention in politics is particularly endemic in new states whether they are located in Latin America, Europe or in Asia and Africa. The reasons for this are not difficult to find. All new states have to attend to distinct processes: to create a state structure, to promote a national identity aimed at enticing diverse groups to identify with the new state, to determine the level of popular participation in political processes most suitable to their political culture, and to organize the distribution of wealth (Almond and Powell, 1966). The most important process, at least as far as this topic is concerned, is to establish a political system which is accepted, or at least tolerated, by the populace as well as by the men at arms. In other words, the most important question in civil-military relations is legitimacy. If a civilian regime is seen to be legitimate it is usually safe from high levels of military intervention. But usually governments of new states lack the integrative capacity to solve all of these problems at once, with the result that armed or unarmed strongmen seize power in the belief that democratic processes are too slow to produce satisfactory results fast.
For the great majority of people in non-Western societies democracy is, therefore, not particular attractive or conducive to "good government", whatever this may entail within the context of a particular political culture and general perception of what constitutes legitimacy. Therefore no popular support is forthcoming when democratic institutions are threatened by civilian or military authorities. Finally, the civilian leaders in Third World democracies have rarely understood what is required of them either. They often go into politics with the sole aim of milking the system for their own benefit. All too often, parliamentary activity is concerned not with passing much-needed legislation and supervising the workings of the government, but with excessive engagement in power politics focusing on toppling cabinets.
Thus a combination of the existence of circumstances not particularly conducive to the emergence of democratic values, the incapacity of civilian leadership to solve urgent problems, popular confusion as to what truly constitutes democracy and the corruption and incompetence of civilian leaders has led to the early abandonment of democratic ideals and structures in most new states. Indonesia is a perfect example of a country in which all four factors applied at the same time. The parliamentary democracy in Indonesia collapsed when, after one of the frequent parliamentary overthrows of cabinet, a new coalition could not be stitched together and it fell to figure-head President Sukarno to create with the help of an increasingly irritated military, his Guided Democracy which soon turned out to be far more guidance than democracy. (Sundhaussen, 1998)
The above description of politics in developing countries should not be used to reach an all-out condemnation of Third World politics. These countries are still in various stages of transition, experimenting with the apparent policy and constitutional options available to them. This process is continuing and may, in due time, produce political arrangements which suit developing societies better than those they had in the past.
As the famous historian Claude Welch has concluded, there is "[n]o single prescription for civilian control [which] can be devised to apply to the scores of developing countries". He adds, "civilian control can be achieved and maintained in developing countries, but only with skill, patience, leadership, and a not inconsiderable amount of good luck" (Welch, 1976). Objective controls do not work; civilians fearful of military intervention are not prepared to grant the military that degree of autonomy which, in turn, would make the officers respect the prerogatives of politicians. Moreover, professionalism which is an integral part of objective control, is an extremely dangerous concept if it is only made to apply to soldiers and no-one else in society. Part of the definition and essence of professionalism is service to clients, and in the case of the military, society-at-large is the client. The history of civil-military relations in developing countries is full of examples where a professional or partly professional military has used its self-perceived obligations vis-a-vis its client to justify the overthrow of politicians, who were seen as failing to live up to expected standards.
The central argument is that the military has played significant political roles in societies in transition, and even in firmly established democracies it may have an impact on how the system operates. The non-military roles they adopted were not simply based on the military's political inclinations, but equally on the conduct of civilian elites. But this role is diminishing at all levels of political culture; and this is particularly evident in societies previously most exposed to higher levels of military intervention As a matter of fact, if we concede that public political awareness has increased, and legitimacy is becoming more important even in societies where there is an unbridled struggle for power, then the clays of military regimes are numbered. Increasingly, military coup makers have found it necessary to justify their interventions by promising solutions to problems the incumbent civilian governments have been unable to tackle. But once in power if the military cannot solve these problems either and that is increasingly the case then the justification for the coup is removed; on the other hand, if it solves these problems it has worked itself out of the job. So, "regardless of whether or not the regime has succeeded in its goal, it will lose the legitimacy to continue in office indefinitely" (Sundhaussen, 1984).
Admittedly, the retreat to the barracks of a military regime is not necessarily followed by the creation of a democratic polity. But it is a prerequisite for democracy in countries suffering from high levels of military intervention, and in the usual absence of any viable alternatives, an experiment with democracy is a most likely outcome. But neither a retreat to the barracks of military regimes, nor any intervention beyond exercising influence, can be secured without the cooperation of civilian elites. Only if civilian leaders provide "good government" and earn their legitimacy will military elites neither develop the inclination, nor have the opportunity, to intervene in politics.
3.6 Relation between Democracy and Armed Forces during the World Wars.
The rise of democracies in the twentieth century has come in successive "waves of democracy," variously resulting from wars, revolutions, decolonization, and economic circumstances. Early in the century, several countries that were part of the British Empire gradually gained their independence: Australia, New Zealand, and Canada all became stable, liberal democracies modeled on the British parliamentary system. South Africa became a democracy, but with a franchise limited to white people. After World War I the Allies, under pressure from Woodrow Wilson, decided with theTreaty of Versailles to break up the Austro-Hungarian Empire into new nation states.
Some, like Austria, established a democratic system, while in others, such as Hungary, strong men came to power either to establish national unity or to defend the country from predatory larger neighbors. Without either mature national identities or democratic traditions to draw upon, they were all very unstable, mostly degenerating into nationalism. The Ottoman Empire, too, was partitioned and different countries created and administered under League of Nations mandates awarded to France, Britain, and Italy. The countries contained a mixture of ethnic, national, and religious groups without a common identity, which made government very difficult. The British, who administered Iraq, imposed a parliamentary constitution on the country along with a monarch. However, the democratic roots were not very deep and there was a coup in 1958. In Russia, the absolute monarchy of Tsarism was overthrown in the February Revolution of 1917
The Great Depression also brought disenchantment and instability, and in several European countries, dictators and fascist parties came to power. They did so either by coups or by manipulating the democratic system claiming to be able to solve problems which liberalism and democracy could not. Dictatorships were established in Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Poland, the Baltic Republics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others. Together with Stalin's regime in the Soviet Union, this period has been called the "Age of Dictators" (DiCola, 1997). Even in the United States Franklin D. Roosevelt wielded much more power than previous presidents which coincided with a huge expansion of government.
The aftermath of World War II brought a definite reversal of this trend in Western Europe and Japan. With the support of the U.S. and UK, liberal democracies were established in all the liberated countries of western Europe and the American, British, and French sectors of occupied Germany were democratized too. However in most of Eastern Europe, socialist democracies were imposed by the Soviet Union where only communist and communist associated parties were allowed to participate in elections. Membership of these parties was restricted, which disenfranchised most of the population. The communist party maintained itself in power by claiming to be the "vanguard of the proletariat (working class)," using intimidation and force against "counter-revolutionaries." The Soviet sector of Germany became the German Democratic Republic and was forced into the Soviet bloc.
World War 2 is often remembered in simple terms as the fight and ultimate victory over the fascist nations of Europe, particularly the Nazis. Second World War is often colored in terms of good vs the evil war and is termed as the 'Good War'. But this alliance included in its own brutal dictatorship in the form of the Soviet Union.
Given the "Eastern Front" - some territories in Europe, where the back of the German army clashed with the Russian army- broke through democratic means - read some disturbing conclusions about the war. Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy was decisively defeated and completely knocked down as dictators.
Just as Hitler was defeated out and out, Stalin's Soviet Union was clearly the winner. Stalin was suspicious of Hitler before the war - and so was he paranoid about non-communist Europe. Due to these causes, in the first days of the war during 1939, Russia invaded Poland and the Baltic States to establish one Soviet cushion between Germany and Russia. This pillow failed in 1941 with the Nazi Operation Barbarossa and the consequent invasion of the Soviet Union. However, after an almost complete invasion of Soviet Union, its forces returned to the outskirts of Moscow and Stalingrad from where the Soviet Forces pushed Germany and its allies all the way back to Berlin. Germany was defeated.
However, World War 2 has not only see Russia defeat Germany. It also saw their armies range over a vast area from Eastern Europe in an attempt to defeat the fascists, and when the war ended, the Soviet system was still in control of this country in which it moves, too friendly, pro-Soviet government to establish what that meant in practice, communist dictatorships subservient to Russia. The completion of the 2nd World War saw the Soviets not only defeat Germany, but provide a cushion against the rest of occupied Europe on a much greater scale than in 1939 subsequently initiating the Cold War with the West.
In the Western world, World War 2 is represented as an unambiguous success, and it's easy to see why. Nazi Germany was totally defeated, while France, Italy, the Netherlands, the Federal Republic of Germany and other nations have been returned to a democratic state. But when Britain and France declared war on Germany in 1939, it was because the Germans in Poland, which was soon defeated and had entered under the rule of a murderous dictatorship. By the end of the war in 1945, Poland was still under the rule of a murderous dictatorship, but this time it was Stalin's Russia. While countries like Britain were free from the threat of Nazi attack, the war had led directly to a vast region of Eastern Europe swapping one totalitarian dictatorship to another. For the Soviet Union, this was successful, but can the same really for the UK, U.S. and other democracies are said involved?
This situation had led people to argue that the Second World War not completely finished until the end of the Cold War in the late 80s and the return of democracy to Eastern Europe. It is important to remember that the conclusion of the second World War, as celebrated during the time was different for Eastern and Western Europe. But bear this in mind, it is perhaps not exactly easy to say that democracy won World War 2
3.7 Democracy and Armed forces - relation in underdeveloped countries. Does an armed force possess a dictatorial characteristic?
Most dictators do have several common dilemmas. Usually they prevail as autocracies by appointing governments with a single self-appointed leader and no governing body to check upon his powers. Often authoritarians have totalitarian regimes to keep their power through control of the manipulation of mass media. Restriction is imposed upon by totalitarian dictators with the help of secret police services and spy elements on the citizens of their state which can go as far as to completely remove their personal freedoms.
Promotion of many of these dictators as cult personality, a form of hero worship, in which the masses express their leaders fed upon propaganda of a spotless human divine (and in some cases, divine or divinely appointed). North Korean dictator Kim Il-sung (father of Kim Jong-Il) was created essentially the only subject of all forms of art in the country. Students were taught thanks to Kim Il-sung, the source of all their blessings give, as part of their training. Critics spoke of him as a megalomaniac and extremely narcissistic. Saddam Hussein's Iraq was full of statues, murals, posters and paintings bearing his image.
As with ancient Roman dictators and recent examples of Napoleon Bonaparte, it is often the case that an emergency or a coup leads come to a dictator to power. However, there were dictators who arrived legally. Adolph Hitler, for example, became chancellor or appointed head of government of President Paul von Hindenburg in 1933. After Hindenburg died, Hitler Fuhrer (a combination of President and Chancellor).
Besides the fact that they are politicians, dictators often are also the highest military officer in their state before winning of absolute power. Manuel Noriega of Panama was a soldier all his life. As leader (though never officially president, he was declared chief) of the country, he ordered his military and in generally uniform in public.
Noriega rule was an example of a military dictatorship that a civilian government with little real power (some military dictatorships stratocracies where the military has ruled the country directly) had. Military dictators often take control of a coup, but some develop into the role. Saddam Hussein was originally the general of the Iraqi army and the Vice President. He gained more power than the then president, Ahmed Hassan al-Bakr, became ill. Hussein officially became president in 1979.
A variation of the military dictatorship can be a junta, which were the typical military dictatorship in Latin America. This includes a committee of military leaders often fall into the same types of behaviors such brutality and oppression, dictatorships. The country of Burma was ruled by a junta, the State Peace and Development Council since 1988.Once they are in power, it usually takes a lot for a dictator to step down.
Undoubtedly, the neoconservative movement with awe by those responsible for criticizing is treated. Liberal commentators continue with hysteria or stunned to destroy the ability of the Conservatives to civil liberties, while previously led react three preemptive wars.
Historically, the transition from democracy to dictatorship in various forms, include military coups, civil wars, election manipulations and "emergency" situations that appear to come as something "special". Although dictatorial forms differ radically in appearance, basically there remain significant common features.
A dictatorship can not be formed from the sky, it must in any case be a background of interests and groups that aide's Regime finances or gain some aggressive support. These interests also have a historical background. From its position as a beneficiary of the economic organization of society, dictatorship has been, with few exceptions, performed in the service of a minority, these dictatorships have always represented the interests of the financial elite. By limiting the definition in this way we are able to make connections with the fascists in Italy, Japan and Germany, the secular dictatorships of the neo-colonial world.
It is in the interest of all the ruling class, the control of the government to hold democratic means, as the costs for the maintenance of order is less strenuous, and the ease of channeling increased dissatisfaction with compromises and concessions. It must then be asked: Why are these groups already have enormous wealth and prestige, catered by the resort to the barbaric and complicated policies that are implied by the dictatorship, instead of keeping the less conflictual relations that are found in a more democratic Government? The shallow answers 'greed' or 'madness' of the hand should be dismissed obviously, especially when there are much more useful answers.
To the dismay of the ruling classes, the social conditions of society change in a way that they have no control over. As companies follow the rules of profit, they accidentally create the same time a growing polarization of wealth. How the rich get richer and the poor get poorer, change the social conditions gradually until the exploited classes suddenly make demands, or actions begin "anarchy", ie increase strikes, protests, factory occupations and rebellion.
A dictatorship is born with the necessary evil of the natural processes of capitalism. Increased enforcement powers are needed to suppress unrest, create social stability and insure industries important to not "nations" economy disrupted by strikes, to allow the destruction of civil liberties, protest, organization and freedom of expression timeless policy to combat a disaffected population.
Explain dictatorship as a result of social inequality is particularly relevant to third world countries, where necessary "order" to ensure that the countries "stable" enough to be used as a source for markets and raw materials for their colonial masters, but this can Statement will not be applied across the board.
For industrialized countries, the causes of the dictatorship are complex. In addition to social polarization, first world countries are also involved in constant economic and regional expansion, a phenomenon easily to the interests of the capitalist mastermind traced. A government is only as powerful as the corporate power behind it, and the interdependence of nation-state and corporate interests, by the fact that both of the same laws of the market, which means that on the ground, each of the governed, are revealed excluded processes either expansion and growth or stagnation and decline. In the same way that stagnation in the corporate world recession or depression the same, so these principles by the mediators of the financial interests of the nation-state are contradictory. For a country in decline, meaning that its global influence waning, it has influence lost to foreign nations, preventing the exploitation of natural resources and preferential market access for industrial goods, or rather is, the country is not able to provide the basis for businesses within its boundaries dominate the world, then the goals of the nation state and the society can not be separated.
The Company is not, nor has there ever been an independent arbitrator interests. Corporate profits, depending heavily on the impoverishment of their workers are often used to measure the economic health of a country. In times of economic growth and social stability, democracy seems like a good thing, even if it. Broad strata of society who suffer from poverty or generations the horrors of homelessness Although the world has experienced an unprecedented growth after the Second World War, these conditions were reached their natural limit. The conditions that have created the basis for the class and international peace into its opposite.
3.8 The 21st century perspective
A democratic government is almost instantly recognizable by one the people of a nation, and how well their government represents their interests. In true democratic nations, you will find that people are often separated from their legislators and legislators, but are one and the same. In a democratic government can be seen that the laws reflect the common aspirations of the people, and rarely violated any civil rights or social privileges established members of the community. This is because the basis of most modern democracies is the equality of all persons before the law, and the duty of the first true democracy, citizenship is, that the laws and institutions of social or political change social, maintaining, in the best interest of the Company. A democracy ensures loyalty forevear. In the most friendly and more effective action on behalf of its citizens, and that the universality of democracy, and that must also be made by the legislature to wait an excessive sacrifice on the part of its citizens, and while this is a feature distinctive democratic systems that are fundamental democratic principles and institutions on the basis of this property are to define what modern democracy. This fundamental democratic institutions are the Democratic Constitution and the social contract between citizens and government.
A democratic constitution is a document complex and multifaceted nature of which is to build the legitimate democratic order in a young country during the period of its creation, and establish offices and institutions of democratic governance, which are brought to life after ratification . A constitution is an essential foundation of a documented history of the nation and the principles on which the nation was conceived. Although there are a variety of purposes, such as serving formally list the fundamental rights of its citizens, a Constitution, whose main purpose is to serve as an educator and memory, so that no one represents the theme of his government or ignorant to present their rights in the affairs of government is to speak and vote, and above all, that no citizen could forget the basic principles and objectives of the founders of the nation.
The Constitution should be informative to understand the members of the newly formed democratic government can and accept their responsibilities and freedoms in accordance with the Constitution and possible complications. The Constitution has made the hearts of the people, whose desire was able to establish a democratic order, so that when the citizens of government policy and operation of this new system are informed, they can immediately identify with the goals of the new government. In a democratic government, people have the right to award over another to govern themselves, but without identifying its location, with its young state, people feel alienated. The legitimacy of the new laws and the government once people accept democracy and elected officials have started going to write legislation for them, begins to occur, the true democratic process, followed by the simultaneous creation of laws to protect civil liberties taken with his consent and the growth of government. In democracies people will be the first in the government, to ensure that your rights are protected and respected democratic principles and the increased participation by citizens there, the more established democratic government become.
The social contract is an agreement between the state and citizens who govern the State, but only with the consent of the governed, that the State has an obligation to be called to provide for its citizens, and citizens are expected to sacrifice in the name of the State's claim is that the state protection of fundamental rights and freedoms of all citizens and all persons are equal before the laws of the State never unfair to the rights of citizens and citizens are obliged to respect the rights and freedoms of others. The social contract to ensure that individual freedoms are protected by the government, and any violation of these rights will be immediately treated and cared for by a government capable of governing directly over its citizens (an advantage of small democracy). At the same time, the entry into the social contract is an agreement on the part of citizens to recognize and accept their own freedoms and liberties of their fellow citizens, each victim accepts the government asked to (within reason) for the benefit of the Community. While this may seem at first like an alarming principle, inherent control of democracy is defined to maintain the rule of the people, for the people, would be at the expense of the legislature, to wait an excessive sacrifice by its citizens. Therefore, each victim can call a government for all citizens to do, it would be sensible and only in cases where one or more people called, the victim would only make the legitimacy of this type of application could be questioned .
Democracies naturally earn the loyalty and admiration of its citizens by direct reaction, ie, that every citizen should be able to go need the government or established by government programs needed, or if none is available, the public can create one Start initiative, which lacks programs he or she feels is in the nation. Because it is in the best interests of a self-governing engine to look for yourself, more self-care-of citizenship, and usually in some kind of political discussions or social evolution that implies, of course, resulting in a sense of pride and loyalty to citizenship. You can even to the point that the sense of belonging would also be created in the public, enabling the creation of a voluntary military force efficient. But for citizens to fully understand and appreciate its system of government (especially the generations of citizens who have no memory of any time before the foundation) must be well educated in the democratic process, on the issue of national history and international, and should be educated about alternative forms of government.
Democracy and relations with the Armed Forces - Notable Perspectives.
Undoubtedly, the range of interactions between civilians and military in Asian countries seems to be higher than among the African and Latin America, a factor that could be at least partially explained by a variety of colonial experiences. However, some common patterns, and some contrasting patterns, invite comparison.
Burma, Indonesia and Pakistan have suffered enough conventional military coups in the army intervened after several years of fractious parliamentary politics under the pretext of restoring "political order". In Burma the army restored civilian politics after two years, but soon intervened again and has remained in power ever since, becoming one of the world's most durable regimes modern military. Both in Burma and Indonesia, the military had played an important role in achieving independence and soldiers had played an early role in government. In both countries, having intervened decisively, the military consolidated its position by expanding into commercial and civil administration and the establishment of a political party dominated by the military. Both regimes have maintained strong central control, repress opposition (especially in ethnic peripheries), and both have had a poor record on civil and political rights.
But there the similarities end. In Indonesia, at least some of the pitfalls of a democratic system, have remained largely effectively with three state-approved parties submitted to the elections. policy has determined quite an impressive rate and fair distribution of economic development since the late 1960s and a fairly high degree of political stability has been maintained. This has contributed to a degree of legitimacy of performance that has allowed President Suharto to remain in power for almost thirty years, despite frequent predictions about the imminent demise of his regime. By contrast, Burma abandoned any pretense of participatory politics since 1962 and has waged an ongoing war against non-Burman ethnic groups, and has long been, a communist uprising. These factors, together with a record of economic performance in 1987 was down to Burma one of the poorest countries in the world, and a high degree of political repression, has seriously undermined the regime's legitimacy. This culminated in the popular uprising of 1988 without success, from which emerged a more repressive military regime. In both cases the lack of sharp divisions within the military (once Burma had effectively purged the army of its non Burmese) has been a factor in the maintenance of the regime in Burma in 1988 but looked a bit like a power movement line popular in the Philippines two years ago could force a regime change with military acquiescence. In explaining the differences in system performance is more difficult, although serious ethnic divisions that separate Burma probably inherited from the colonial period imposed major obstacles to national unity of Indonesia (not inconsiderable) ethnic diversity, and it is difficult to avoid the conclusion that Burma is opting for virtual economic isolation largely explain the disastrous economic record denying any claim of the military regime may have made to the performance-based legitimacy.
In Pakistan, too, a politicized military intervened on the pretext of restoring political order. But after a decade as martial law administrator, General Ayub Khan became president-elect and what Pakistan has seen since then is a growing interpenetration of military and civilian politicians, compounded by ethnic divisions, and a succession of regimes on either side of a midpoint. And there seems to be nothing to suggest that this pattern will change substantially.
In Bangladesh, on the other hand, the military initially did not intervene to restore order among the fractious politicians, but to remove a civilian regime increasingly authoritarian. And having come to power to the military proceeded to civilianize and democratize politics of Bangladesh. The factions of the army intervened again, however, and although there were suggestions that Bangladesh was moving towards a system similar to Indonesia fused, opposition to authoritarian rule rather Ershad in 1990 led to a popular uprising to restore democracy (although for how long remains to be seen).
In the two cases in South Asia and in Thailand, the military (or factions of the armed forces) has become one of several key players in a fluid system policy. After expanding their role in government, business and politics, and have formed links with nonmilitary players (including linkages established along ethnic lines / regional and class), the military seems likely to continue playing a role in a broad civil-military mixed system, the paper type varies with time according to the political and economic performance of the incumbent government. The same could be said of Korea, where a civil authoritarian regime initially was overthrown by a popular uprising and the army intervened to impose order. Since 1961, Korea has experienced a series of mixed civilian and military, civilian and military governments, both in their tendencies toward authoritarianism, while civil society seems to have become stronger since the 1980s.
In Thailand, Korea and perhaps, there seems to be some validity to the general proposition that military intervention is less likely that societies become more complex and the middle class expands, the proposition seems less relevant to Pakistan and Bangladesh - although of common professionalist often cited military heritage of British colonialism.
Philippines under Marcos has one of a number of cases of an authoritarian, repressive (still retaining much of the formal appearance of democracy - elections, parties, a legislature and the judiciary, a reasonably free press) in which the military played a relatively minor role. As in Bangladesh, substantive input from the military in politics came in support of popular demands for the restoration of democracy. Having played a role in removing Marcos, elements of the armed forces were clearly as having a continuing role in government, but despite a series of failed coup military professionalism model remained substantially . So, what has to be explained in the Philippines - as in Papua New Guinea, where despite occasional rumors of a military coup imminent intervention has never been attempted - is why successful coups have not occurred. In both countries, most of the classic preconditions and motives of coups have been present: the imbalance between military and civilian political institutions and at least debatable periods of political instability, threatening the corporate interests of the armed forces, and personal ambition, factionalism within the armed forces have also existed, although not on the same scale (and without obvious ethnic divisions or class) that has been experienced elsewhere. Both countries inherited a strong tradition of professionalism, but which were not different from Fiji or Pakistan. An attractive line of explanation perhaps lies in the vitality of civil politics in both countries - a vitality that in the Philippines, including the repressive regime of President Marcos could not hold back - and transparent logistical difficulties to maintain centralized control. However, to varying degrees both arguments can be applied to other cases (eg, Pakistan and Indonesia), in which coups occurred.
In fact, these case studies systematically produce little to support any of the common "explanations" for military intervention, although elements of all these explanations can be invoked. Explaining individual cases, history (especially regarding the role of the military in the colonial regime and its role in the struggle for independence) is obviously important, and ethnicity in some cases (especially Burma and Fiji) and factionalism within the armed forces (eg, Indonesia, Bangladesh).
As for performance, well, generalization is difficult. In terms of economic performance, military rule or military-civil merged have performed well in Korea and, to some extent, Indonesia (although perhaps not as well as non-military regimes in the region, such as Singapore and Malaysia), but have poorly in Burma and Bangladesh (although no worse than the civil administration in the Philippines under Marcos), Thailand's record (as in many other aspects) is mixed.
As for political action, compared to the three criteria mentioned above - competition, participation and civil liberties and political - there is no greater evidence of a military division / non-military, but again the evidence is not clear. Comparing countries, Burma and to a lesser extent Indonesia have a poor performance against the three criteria, like Thailand, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Korea under the military regime. In Fiji, also, during the brief period of military rule there was a decline in political competition and the deterioration of civil liberties and political, though not to the extent experienced in Asian states. Moreover, the essentially civilian regime in the Philippines under Marcos also performed poorly against the competition and the criteria of civil and political liberties and, with some reservations against the participation criterion, at least for part of the period Marcos administration. In the region, the civilian governments of Singapore, Malaysia and Tonga are also far from unblemished records.
However the cases of the former East European Bloc may pose a different story altogether from what have been the experiences of the Asian, African and South American Nations where the role of Armed Forces was predominant. The role of armed forces was minimalist or even nil during transition from authoritarian to democratic rule for the former members of the Eastern Bloc. Transition to democracy in Eastern and Central European nations is a success story in historical perspective. Twenty years after the spectacular collapse of communism, most countries, which had belonged to the "buffer zone" between West Germany and the Soviet Union, now belong to the European Union. The transition was relatively short and was characterized by negotiations, self-limiting behavior, and nonviolence of the participants (with the exception of the Romanian revolution). The ideas of 1989 included negative freedom regarding communism, free market liberalism, consensual democracy, civil society, peaceful non-involvement of the Armed Forces and the wish of the people to return to Europe, determined by the social, political, and economic legacies of communism. The short transition was followed by a longer and more difficult consolidation, which was parallel with economic restructuring, privatization, adequate handling of the Armed Forces and coping with specific deregulations. The pain of economic transformation was socially accepted as an "inevitable" part of the process. Social peace could therefore be based on the patience of these societies as well as on the hope to enter NATO and the European Union. In a way, it was more of an externally driven consolidation.
The most striking feature of Central European transitions from communist rule to Democracy was not only the self-limiting behavior of their participants but also the non-involvement of the Military. In order to achieve their radical goals for freedom, leaders of the opposition in Central Europe had to convince the members of the reformist wing of the communist leadership that they would not be killed or jailed during the transition to democracy. Moreover, in some countries with reformist communist traditions, they even convinced the communists that a possible peaceful transition served their own interests as well. And this worked to everybody's advantage. In the transition period, the popular wish to get rid of the old regime helped to overcome the social costs of economic transformation. In the period of democratic consolidation, the very chance to join the European Union contributed greatly to maintaining the efforts to deepen and extend democracy.
East and Central European countries had to combat tremendous problems to complete the tasks of the double or triple transition,that is from dictatorship to democracy, from state socialism to capitalism and, in many cases, from being non states to democratic nation states (as was the cases with most break away states from the Soviet Union). Transitions to democracy had significant social and economic costs. Nevertheless, these cost would have been unimaginable had the Armed forces of these Nations in any way been involved during the transition phase.
