Military regimes are common through out history the world over. To avoid the ambiguity of trying to encompass too much in too little, this essay will focus on some regimes in South America, East Europe and in Asia. In the subsequent paragraphs, it will be seen that military coups are usually the result of political instability, usually caused by politicians incapable of leading the country or because of a need to fight an insurgency. It can also result from instability brought about by strong polarization due to external influences. All these conditions are easily identifiable to the current political situation in Nepal and hence make interesting case studies. It is also seen that a military regimes start out strongly by providing political stability and development activities, however, in the long run, suffer from public disenchantment and end abruptly, often bringing back political instability. Further, it will be hilighted, that democratization of the military is successful only if it complements the democratization of the country.
Asia is the largest and most populous continent. It has, in its recent history, seen many military regimes. Some of these regimes are today seen as the biggest threat to western ideas and hence make intresting case studies.
Iraq
The fall of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the present day Iraq falling into the hands of the British. The plebiscite of 1921 established Faisal I as the King of Iraq. WWII brought in a short lived pro-Nazi government under Rashid Ali. This was followed by decades of unstable political setups which included a French mandated government followed by a King Hussein of Jordan supported monarch. Inspired by Nasser's movement in Egypt, a new wave of political uprising took over much of the Arab world, and in Iraq, Brig Abd al-Karin Qasim and Col Abdul Salam Arif led a successful military coup in 14 July 1958. Then followed a series of assassinations, an air crash that killed the president and a few military coups until the Ba'ath Party under Ahmad Hassan al-Baks became the president on 17 July 1968. He resigned and his successor, General Saddam Hussein, took over the helms in July 1979. Saddam was initially seen as a pro-west leader. [1] In spite of all his deficiencies, Saddam criticizers today agree that Iraq had its longest term of stability and rule of law under Saddam. [2] Saddam was finally overthrown by the US led allied invasion in 2003 and peace still continues Iraq.
Pakistan
The defeat of Pakistan in the third war against India in 1971 led to the secession of East Pakistan to give birth to Bangladesh. This led to the fall of the military regime. A civillian government under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to power in 1972. The elections of 1977 saw Bhutto emerge victorious but the opposition accused him of election fraud. In the subsequent political turmoil, General Zia-ul-Haq took over the country through a bloodless coup. In the 1980s, Pakistan was a frontline state in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. As a result, the military regime received substantial US support. On 17 August 1988, Gen Zia died in an air crash. In the subseuent general elections in November 1988, Benezir Bhutto emerged the winner. Civillian governments under Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif held power untill 1999.In the 1990s, the Pakistan government was one of the only three governments to recognise and support the Taliban regime in Afganistan. Nawaz Shariff won the 1997 elections with a huge margin leading to his position being strong enough to amend the constitution to eliminate all the checks to the Prime mkinister's power. President Farooq Leghri, military chief General Jehangir Karamat and Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah were forced to resign. In 1998, Pakstan tested its nuclear bomb and the resultent sanctions coupled with the Asian economic crisis brought about a steady economic decline. On 12 October 1999, Shariff tried to dismiss the new military chief General Parvez Musharraf who was out of the country, but senior generals refused to accept his decession. In the resultant confusion, Shariff was arrested and Pakistan was once again under a military regime. Musharraf undertook successful economic reforms and supported the US led Global War On Terror, endearing him to the west.
Bangladesh
Bangladesh came into existance as an independent nation in 1971 after secession from Pakistan. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, leader of the Awami League, took over the country under great personal popularity, but the country was plagued by detoriorating economic condition and breaking down of civil order. Criticism of Mujib grew and subsequently he proclaimed a state of emergency in 1974 and curtailed many democratic rights. He was assasinated by disgruntled mid-level army officers in August 1975. From the successive military coups emerged Army Chief of Staff, Gen Ziaur Rahman as Chief Militry Law Administrator in November 1976 withhin 19 points economic reform package. Zia was assasinated by military officers in May 1981, once again pushing the state into a political abyss. From the confusion rose Army Chief of Staff Lt Gen H M Ershad, who suspended the constitution, declared martial law in March 1982 and ruled until his ouster in 1990. The period between 1990 and 2006 saw successive governments under the Awami League led by Sheikh Hassina and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party led by Begum Khalida Zia. Wide spread corruption led the President Iajjudin Ahmed dismissing the government and declaring a caretaker government that subsequently charged both Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khalida Zia of orruption. On 29 December 2008, the country went to polls and the country has returned to normalcy since.
Indonesia
The Indonesian armed forces were a creation of the national struggle for independence. The armed forces therefore inherited a core trained by the Dutch and the Japanese colonial masters. Whilst those educated by the Dutch understood the need to keep the military non partisian in order to maintain its proffessionalism, those that were educated by the Japanese believed in politicization of the military [3] . Besides these groups, various other militias involved in the freedom struggle too joined forces to constitute the Indonesian National Army. The integration of political cadres into the national military ensured it retained its interests in politics [4] . In 1957 some elements in the military rebelled against the state with a stated aim of curbing spread of communism [5] . The rebellioneventually subsided in 1961. On 1 October 1965, Suharto took over the government as the representative of the military. He ensured that he military was well represented in the legislative assembly and as governers and mayors.
Myanmar
The history of the Burmese military is similar to that of Indonesia. During WWII the Burmese people fought on both sides, depending upon their ethnic groups. An ethnic group known as the Karens fought for the British whilst the majority Bamar ethnic group fought alongside the Japanese. After WWII the Bamars along with many other ethnic groups formed the Peoples Volunteer Group to fight the colonialism. The departure of the British saw an outbreak of ethnic violence along the WWII ethnic divide and the military was involved in suppresing the ethnic revolts. In this volatile and uncertain political environment, General Ne Win took over the government and the country has been under military regime ever since.
Thailand
Since Thailand adopted western style constitutional monarchy in 1932, it has had numerous military regimes. The first coup was staged in 1932 by the military wing of the 1932 revolutionary group. The rise of communism in East Asia posed a threat to US interests in the cold war era and as a result the Thai military regimes in those days often received western support. The coups of 1947, 1958. 1976 and 1991 are often described as undemocatic whilst those of 1932 and 1977 are said to be democratic.
Eastern Europe. Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and initiated an economic and political reform package in the USSR known as the glasnost and perstroika. Its failure triggered a chain reaction that ultimately resulted in the disintegration of the Soviet Union into 15 republics and affecting all East European countries. The Polish non-governmental trade union known as the Solidarity was taking roots in the 1980s and slowly took the shape of an anti-communist movement. Though it was met with stiff resistance, the huge popularity of the Solidarity managed to force legal recognition and later won an overwhelming majority in the elections, resulting in the first non communist government in a Warsaw pact country in 1989 and the country soon dropped communism. Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania followed suite, ending communism in East Europe. At the time, Western Europe was already united under a powerful political and economic union known as the European Union. The new democatic states realized that their well being lay in joining this union. In June 1993, the EU formulated Copenhagen criteria that established that the East European countries could become members after satisying economic and political conditions [6] . The conditions read "The country must have stable institutions guaranteeing democracy, the rule of law, human rights and respect for and protection of minorities. The country must have a functioning market economy and must be capable of withstanding the pressure of competition and market forces in the European Union. The country must be able to assume all the obligations flowing from membership, including the aim of political, economic and monetary union." These conditions pushed the countries to transit to true and irreversible democracy. This transition was also reflected in the militaries and to date, there have been no military coups in any of these countries that once had military led totalitarian ommunist regimes.
South America
South America is a continent of 12 countries, all of which at some time have had military rulers or dictators at the helm. Democratization started in 1959 with Venezuela . Surinam was the last South American country to embark upon democracy. However, democracy has been unable to resolve the number one problem in South America - economic disparity resulting from corruption and extensive drug industry. Hence political turmoil always hangs in the clouds. The militaries of all these South American countries have all returned to civilian control, but the prevalent conditions that have the potential for political turmoil can invite the military into the politics [7] . Hence South American countries make interesting case studies for CMR.
Argentina
Until 1929, Argentina was a prosperous country with the 4th highest per capita GDP. However, the Great Economic Depression of 1929 brought about an economic collapse. A weak economy and fragmented political parties leading to internal conflicts weakened the civilian governments, creating conditions for the military to step in. A military coup supported by the Argentine Patriotic League brought Jose Felix Uriburu to power. This military regime was characterized by persecution of the opposition, electoral fraud and corruption. But the fear of the spread of communism spurred the military regime. The country saw a quick succession of military leaders heading the government. The 1950s saw frequent military coups, thus fragmenting the military regime. The elections of 1958 ushered in a civilian government under the Radical Political Party, led by Ricardo Balbin. However the left wing of this party left the assembly in support of the Juan Peron, severely undermining the government. This splinter group, led by Arturo Frondzi, won the presidential elections of 1958. This civilian government was again ousted by a military coup until fresh elections in 1963. This cat and mouse game between civilian leaders and the military continued until 1983, when the military finally conceded power to a civilian government.
Bolivia
Bolivia declared independence from Spain in 1809. It saw 189 military coups in its first 168 years as an independent country. It enjoyed great strides in political and economic advancement under Marshall Andres Santa Cruz between 1829-1839. Santa Cruz declared Bolivia a successor to the Inca Empire, a move that was seen as a nuisance by other regional powers as it could lead to territorial conflicts. The Peruvians and the Chileans finally defeated Santa Cruz leading to a period of about 60 years of coups and counter coups in Bolivia until increasing prices of silver brought some economic relief to Bolivia and some political stability in the late 19th century. Bolivian defeat to Paraguay in the Chaco War (1932-35) and the resultant huge loss of lives and territory discredited the traditional ruling elites, resulting in the emergence of contending political ideologies. Thus started the Bolivian National Revolution (1952-64) from which the socialist leaning middle classed Revolutionary Nationalist Movement emerged victorious. In 1964, President Paz Estenssoro was overthrown by the military in a coup. Bolivian political scene was thrown into a disarray of coups, counter coups and caretaker governments until October 1982, when President Hernán Siles Zuazo came to power. Thereafter civilian governments prevailed until 2000, when widespread protests against privatization led to the government declaring martial rule for a while. Since then the military has been regularly employed by the Bolivian government to bring in political and economic stability in the country.
Brazil
In 1961, Janio Quadros, the president of Brazil resigned soon after being elected, in a failed bid at increasing his popularity. As per the constitution, his vice president, Joao Goular, popularly known as Jango, was to succeed him. Jango, who was then on a trip to China, was accused of being a communist by the right wing militants and prevented from taking office until 1963 resulting in political chaos. On 1 April 1964, a US supported military coup overthrew Jango. Along with rights violations, the military regime was characterized by speedy economic growth. The anti inflation program of 1964-67 led to spectacular economic growth between 1968 to 1975 [8] . The economic growth under the "state capitalism," however, had a regressive income distribution profile. The state embarked upon herculean development programs on overseas borrowing, leading to crippling debt payments. This coupled with the galloping oil prices soon led to economic stagnation in the 1975-85 period. The growing voice of dissent against military mismanagement of economy toppled the military regime to usher in democracy in 1985. The democratic regimes did not heal Brazilian economic woes, and it was not until 1999 that Brazil witnessed a modest economic growth.
Chile
Chile gained independence from Spain in 1818. During its first one and a half century as independent country, it had some form of democratic civilian rule. However, failure to tackle economic disparity amongst the population, intervention by the CIA and KGB in the form of funding of various political parties and increasing political awareness led to destabilizing of the country. In 1970 a Marxist leader, Salvador Allende Gossens, won the presidential elections. He was accused by the US of having turned Chile, with the help of the KGB, into a Soviet operations center. From this turmoil arose General Augusto Pinochet with the coup of 11 September 1973. Pinochet's draconian rule lasted for 17 years until transition to democracy in 1990. Investigations by the Valech Commission in 2004 unearthed wide spread violation of human rights by the military regime, but the regime was successful in managing the economic recovery [9] .
Colombia
From the confusion resultant out of the Napoleonic victory over Spain, out of the Viceroyalty of Granada emerged a representative council to defy Spanish rule. Full independence from Spain was proclaimed in 1813. In 1819 the Republic of Greater Colombia was formed to include all the territory of the former Viceroyalty (Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama). Simon Bolivar was its first president. Francisco de Paula Santander was his vice president. The followers of these two leaders had conflicting political visions leading to the formation of two political parties that have since dominated Colombian politics. Bolivar's supporters formed the Conservative Party, seeking strong centralized government, alliance with the Roman Catholic Church and a limited franchise. Santander's followers, formed the Liberals, seeking a decentralized government, state control over education and other civil matters, and a broader suffrage. The republic adopted its present name of "Republic of Columbia" in 1886. Columbia's political history in the 19th century and early 20th century oscillated between democratically elected Liberal and Conservative governments. But this history has been interrupted three times by military coups - in 1830, in 1854 and more recently in 1953-57. The country has returned to civilian rule since 1958, but peace has been eluding the nation due to urban insurgency and drug wars.
Paraguay
Between 1865 and 1870, Paraguay fought a devastating war with the combined forces of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. From it emerged a two party political system, Colorado and Liberal, that stands to this day. Between 1870 and 1954, Paraguay was ruled by 44 persons, 24 of whom were forced from office. Riding on the proximity of the military to the Colorado party and widespread disillusionment with the corrupt political regimes, General Alfredo Stroessner overthrew the government in 1954 and ruled until 1989. The Stroessner regime was very repressive of political opposition, but it opened up the country. The authorities regime ushered in political stability for the first time in the country's modern history. For the first time in its history, the country undertook a major development project in the form of the mammoth hydroelectric project at Itapu on Rio Parana, which started in 1973. It is estimated that the cost of the project was US$ 12 billion. The injection of this huge capital jump started the Paraguayan economy and is ironically credited with the creation of a middleclass resulting in the growing strength of the pro democracy movement [10] . Stroessner was ousted by a military coup led by General Andrez Rodriguez in 3rd February 1989, who called for general elections on 1st May 1989. With the little preparation time for the opposition, it was no surprise that Gen Rodriguez won the election with 75.8% of the votes [11] . The new government relaxed restrictions on democratic rights and civilian governments have prevailed since then, although there has already been an unsuccessful attempt at military coup in 1996 by General Lino Cesar Oviedo.
Uruguay
In Uruguay, the military played a marginal role in the national politics until the 1960s. It was manned mainly by people from people coming from low income families. The national economy saw a serious downturn in the 1960s resulting in public discontent that led to disruption of law and order. The military was mobilized to support the police and over time took over greater roles in internal security, particularly in a counter insurgency campaign against a Marxist group known as the MLN-T. The army crushed the insurgency in 1972 but the military leadership believed that the country required the military to continue its campaign to prevent a Marxist take over of the country. By June 1973, the military had President Borddaberry suspend democratic rights and institute a repressive military rule through the creation of the National Security Council [12] . The military tried to legitimize the martial rule by proposing a new constitution that was refused through a referendum in 1980. This began a slow process of the disengagement of the military from politics. Protests against the military rule in 1984 hastened the military's departure from politics and democracy has prevailed since then.
Venezuela
After its independence, Venezuela was largely ruled by authoritarian leaders for most of the 19th century. This period saw a series of coups, civil wars and border disputes. On 18 October 1945, the Venezuelan military revolted to bring in a Liberal government. On 24 November 1948, a military coup led by Col Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the Liberal government to usher in a Conservative government. In 1951, the Liberals attempted an unsuccessful counter coup. In a bloody coup, the military ousted dictatorial President Marcos Perez Jimenez in January 1958. The military withdrew from direct involvement in national politics and Venezuela enjoyed a reputation as one of the more stable democracies of Latin America [13] . This calm prevailed until 1988 and the politics was dominated by the Democratic Action and the Christian Democratic parties. In 1989 there was widespread bloody riots. In February 1992, a military officer called Hugo Chavez led a failed military coup and was subsequently jailed. Another coup in November 1992 by officers loyal to Chavez was also unsuccessful. He was released in 1994 and won the presidential elections in 1998. In April 2002, there was another failed attempt at military coup to topple Chavez, sponsored by the United States [14] .
Lessons
The experiences of these Asian, East European and South American countries in the relation between governance and the military bring out many interesting lessons. Some of these have been discussed here.
Lesson 1: Military Coups can result from prolonged domestic turmoil.
Military coups do not usually happen solely due to the political ambitions of the military leadership but are usually forced into national politics by a chain of political and economic activities that undermine the country. The political turmoil that came out of the fall of the Ottoman empire in Iraq, brought in the military regime. General Musharraf was thrust into power due to the excesses of Nawaz Sharrif. Political turmoil in Bangladesh ushered in Erchad. Sharp economic fall and weakening of the political leadership due to infighting ushered in the military coup in Argentina. The devastation of the Chaco War and the growing dominance of the leftists in Bolivia were the reasons behind the success of the military coup of 1964. Widespread disillusionment with corrupt regimes led the success of General Alfredo Stroessner's coup in Paraguay in 1954. In Uruguay, a low profile military was able to wrest the power in the early 1970s because of the threat posed by growing Marxism. The prevelent ethnic turmoil led to Gen Ne Win taking over Burma in 1962.
Lesson 2: Military Coups can result from the vested interests of external forces.
Military coups can be successful if they receive strong support from the international community. This was particularly true in the Cold War era, when the CIA and the KGB competed over influence over neutral; countries. This was true in the case of the US supported military coup on 1 April 1964 in Brazil and Augusto Pinochet's coup in Chile on 11 September 1973. Saddam too was seen as a pro-West leader. The Pakistani military regimes survived because of Western support.
Lesson 3: Military regimes will potray themselves as non partisian or as preventing the establishment of dangerous ideologies in the country.
In the 1980s the Pakistani military regime was seen as necessary to prevent spread of communism in South Asia. Geneal Musharaf justified his regime by saying that it was necessary to prevent fundamental Islamists taking over the country. In South America, it was mostly against communist take over. Saddam was long supported by the West as an ally against the Islamist Iran [15] . The military regimes in most cases stated themselves as non partisian and in the long term interests of the country. Hence, the military regimes often start out as a novel effort to safeguard the nation against a perceived evil.
Lesson 4: Military Coups will bring in short term stability and development.
Generally, the military regimes, from their understanding of military doctrines, understand that the key to holding power is in winning over the neutral population. Hence military regimes focus in maintaining law and order and in economic development. The chain of events that followed a short sighted populist political move by Janio Quadros in 1961 has already been discussed above. These events severely destabilized Brazil and stability reigned in only after the military coup of 1964. The military coup also ushered in economic reforms leading to spectacular economic growth between 1968 to 1975. Pinochet's regime, for all its ills, was credited for the economic recovery of Chile. In Paraguay, the military government brought in a US$ 12 million mammoth hydroelectric project at Itapu on Rio Parana, which started in 1973. It was instrumental in kick starting the economy there. In Uruguay, the military regime was able to bring the country out of the Marxist insurgency. Even Saddam is credited with bringing in som stability in Iraq.
Lesson 5: Democracies that follow military regimes are usually unstable.
The vacuum created by toppling authoritarian military regimes is usually destabilizing. The departure of military regime in Bangladesh in 1990 has not resulted in stability in the country. Similarly, the departure of Musharaf from Pakistan has not aided to the stability of Pakistan. The toppling of Jose Felix Uriburu's government, brought to power by a military coup supported by the Argentine Patriotic League could not establish stable civilian government in Argentina and saw a quick succession of unstable governments until the military once again took over in 1963. Although the military regime ended in 1985 in Brazil, it took until 1999 for the country to find stability and post a modest economic growth.
Lesson 6: Democratization of the military goes hand in hand with the democratization of the state. A look at the East European countries such as Poland, Hungary and Romania show that when the government is working hard to meet democratic benchmarks, the military will follow suite.
Lesson 7: Integrating political groups into a professional military will corrupt the military into a political institution.
This was evident in Indonesia. Whilst Indonesia was a Dutch colony, it has western educated military leadership that understood the ned to remain apolitical to retain its proffessionalism. Later, with the integration of the Japanese educated military personnel who believed in military involvement in politics and with the further integration of the political militias, the Indonesian military soon became an active perticipant in national politics. The Burmese freedom fighters, who were integrated with the British trained western minded military, managed to influence the military into taking the political center stage.
