Can the military be a-political? Should it be?

Résumé du document

The world has been stunned since 1989 by the speed with which the countries of Eastern Europe abandoned four decades of Marxist-Leninist rule and moved into Western-style democracy and capitalism. Although the process of transition was, of course, delicate, it seems that very often economic and ethnic issues have overshadowed one of the most important political challenges faced by the new democratic regimes, that is to say, considering Eastern European history, the issue of military intervention in government. Generally speaking, it seems difficult to affirm that the military can be completely a-political since it is one of the main arms of the nation state. One of the roles of the military is to protect the survival of the state against external threats. For that, it needs to understand and be aware of complex political factors.

Extraits

[...] In Spain, under the rule of Franco, the military was expected to serve the entire society but the problem is that this sense of social responsibility was not interpreted into loyalty to the political headship of the state. Instead, the military was supposed to have a unique, heroic role in the society. This conception of the military was given constitutional status by Franco himself, when article 4 of the Law of the Principles of the National Movement described the army as expression of the heroic virtues of the Spanish people”. The lack of civilian supremacy was extended so far that the armed forces did not even have to obtain political agreement of the defence budget. [...]

[...] Most democratic leaders seem to have understood that the uniformed armed forces, as an institution, should take no positions on non-military problems and those military personnel should refrain from public political declarations. To conclude, it seems obvious that any national armed forces cannot be entirely a-politic since they receive orders from the government and must be able to understand them. Moreover, the degree of politicisation of the army really depends on the political culture of the state. However, the military must concentrate on its professionalism and not interfere in political debates. [...]

[...] The conditions inspiring frustration in the military are often the result of socio-political praetorianism. For a successful intervention to occur, disposition must be accompanied by opportunity, which is produced by the weakness or incompetence of civilian political institutions. Huntington calls this situations “praetorianism”. In a praetorian state, social forces operate directly in the political arena. The political legal structures are useless. There are no typical accepted rules of the game. Consequently, the praetorian state is characterized by political corruption, strikes and demonstrations. [...]

[...] The Code of Military Justice was transformed in October 1980. This reform put an end to the military's powers of censorship and control of dissent. The new legal code was considered to be legal foundation for the assertion of civil supremacy”. It purpose was to set the military's withdrawal from politics by giving the civil courts power to try cases of military rebellion against the constitution. The new Spanish Constitution adopted in 1978 placed the armed forces subordinate to the civilian government and enjoined them to preserve the “constitutional order”. [...]

[...] In a way, it definitely seems that the national armed forces should be non partisan but dedicated to the preservation of the sovereignty and democratic system of the State. Bibliographie indicative Morale in the Military in War and Peace and Gender, Public Policy, and the State: Women and the Military ; Papers Presented at the 1998 Meeting of the . Association, Boston, September par Mass.) American Political Science Association. Meeting (1998: Boston (Broché - novembre 2000) Justice in War-time par Bertrand Russell (Broché) Encyclopedia of Security Management par John J. [...]