Thanks to the military coup of Myanmar, the question of civil-military relations has come into the focus. What exactly is the role of the military and how should the military relate to the rest of the governing apparatus?
As a rule of thumb, its very clear in most democracies that
the military is always subordinate to the civil structure. Take the American
example where the nation’s top soldier, the Chairman of the Joint Chief’s is
merely an advisor to the president and has no operational authority over any troops.
This is repeated further down the chain of command where the uniformed heads of
services report directly to civilian secretaries. This example is not just
limited to America. This appears to be the case in other places.
So, when someone who has grown up in a system where the
military is merely a tool of the apparatus of state, hears of a military coup
or a situation where the military takes over the government, one tends to groan
and see disasters for the nation where the coup has happened.
While there have been situations where a military coup can
be helpful in situations where civilian politics starts to become dysfunctional
as was the case in Thailand in 2014 when the then Prime Minister, Yingluck
Shinawatra was removed by the military and the same could be said for Pakistan
in 1999 when the then head of the army, General Pervez Musharraf removed Nawaz
Sharif. There are leaders of military coups who have done a good job. Jerry
Rawlings, former Ghanaian President comes to mind. This former air force office
was described as a “Beast” by a Ghanaian friend.
However, with these notable exceptions, things tend to go
downhill when the soldiers stay in power after their sell by date. Economies
usually tank and so do the social indicators of a country. Nigeria, for example
has done better since it returned to civilian rule many years ago.
Interestingly enough, one of the institutions that suffers
in a military coup is the military itself. Instead of being a mean and lean
fighting force that keeps the nation safe from foreign invaders, it becomes a flabby
force used to keep the civilian population down.
These guys look tough
Copyright ABC News
When they’re fighting these guys:
Copyright Money Control
But How would they do if they had to face these guys?
Copyright Bangkok Post
The record of militaries in fighting wars has been pretty
dismal when it comes to fighting other nations. As one former Indian National Pointed
out – Pakistan’s military dominates Pakistan but in the three wars they have
fought against India, they have lost miserably.
A record of the Pakistani Military in wars can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Pakistan
Another country that has seen more than its fair share of
military coups is Nigeria. How has the Nigerian Army done in conflicts? If you
look at the list of conflicts the Nigerian military has been involved in, you’ll
note that its usually against separatist or as part of an international
coalition. The one victory its had against Chad back in 1983. A record of the Nigerian
military can be found at:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_involving_Nigeria
How has years of military rule been for the Myanmar
military? Well, the nearly half a million Myanmar military’s main experience
has been fighting various internal insurgents, each with a force of not more
than 10,000 men. The military has been in conflict with these groups since
1948. Now, you would imagine that a national force would have been able to shut
down much smaller insurgent groups if it really was an effective fighting force?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_conflict_in_Myanmar
Wouldn’t it be better for all parties involved if the
military went back to the barracks and focused on brining order against
insurgent rebels, which in turn would encourage foreign investment, which would
benefit everyone.
No comments
Post a Comment