Zoltan Barany Explanatory Post

The Zoltan Barany reading highlights the importance of the military in determining the success or failure of a revolution. Given the events of the past few years with the Arab Spring revolutions, this is a particularly interesting idea. Many of the countries involved in the Arab Spring revolutions can be analysed using the response, or lack of response, of the military.

The main idea in the reading is that the military is the most important factor in determining whether or not a revolution succeeds. A revolution is highly unlikely to succeed if the military does not support it, and the current regime is going to be unable to stay in power without the support of the military. Basically, everyone needs the military’s help to get what they want, and the military needs to choose what will be in its own best interests. The military usually sides with whichever side of a revolution it thinks will be victorious (or at least it attempts to).

There are many factors that influence how the military decides which way it is going to act in response to an attempted revolution. These fall into four main categories. The first is the military establishment itself, which includes the attributes and composition of the military. The second is the state and how it treats the military. The third is the society, with the military leaders being influenced by the key characteristics of the rebellions and protests within society. The final factor that determines the military’s response is the international setting. This includes the reaction of the international community and the chances that the revolutions may spread across borders and into other countries. These four factors often influence each other and although these are good indicators of what is going, the best way to know what the military will do in any given situation is to know about the country.

Influences from within the military itself are an important factor in determining a military’s reaction to a revolution. The most critical of the interior factors is the military’s internal cohesion, which can be decided by several factors.

·         An ethnic or religious split within uniformed ranks can reflect a similar split between the population as a whole. In these cases, ethnicity can often trump military professionalism, citizenship and ideology, becoming a person’s main loyalty, especially in countries where the revolution or protests are based on ethnicity or sectarian matters. 

·         Sociopolitical divisions among the top brass may also detract from military cohesion. These generals may differ in their political orientation, professional outlook and educational background. This can lead to some officers being more receptive to the idea of a revolution, while others are loyal to the existing regime.

·         The lack of prestige of the regular military in comparison to the elite units set up by the regime is often a sign of distrust of the regular army, making the army more likely to side with rebels in a revolution. The elite units are more likely to stay loyal to the existing regime due to the superior treatment they have received. This was the case in Iraq, where the Republican Guard stayed and fought against the Americans long after the rest of the army had disbanded, due to their increased loyalty to Saddam, stemming from their superior treatment and prestige.

·         There can also be splits between the regular military and other parts of the security state. In many regimes there are other institutions that have similar roles, but are favoured by the regime. For example, the police, or the secret police, often hold a much higher position in society than the regular army.

·         There can also be splits between the different branches of the armed forces. In some cases, one branch, such as the army, may side with the regime, while others do not play a major role, or even side with the rebels.

·         There can be splits within the officers, with junior and senior officers having differing views on a revolution due to the hierarchical nature of the military organisation. The split can lead to a lack of cohesion in the military, influencing the response in a revolution.

·         There are also differences between the professional soldiers and the conscripts. Conscripts are more likely to sympathise with a revolution that has broad support among the population. Volunteers are more likely to do as their superiors tell them.

·         The decision-making autonomy of the generals is also a factor. If there is objective civilian control, the military enjoys significant autonomy. The alternative is objective control, where the generals are closely watched. In the case of objective control, the military is not used to making decisions on its own, so may be unwilling to take decisive action. Hesitation on the part of the military can be fatal to a regime, as a government facing a revolution needs the support of the military to survive.

Influences from the State include the regimes treatment of the military. If the regime has treated the military well, the military is likely to perceive supporting the regime as being in its best interests. The generals view of the existing regime also plays a large part, with generals likely to back a regime they believe is popular than one they believe is likely to fall. Another factor is the regimes directions to the military, as it is important that the regime gives clear instructions. If a military regime receives unambiguous directions they will more likely react in a way that is favourable to the military.

There are many influences that arise from within society, as it is the society that begins the revolution in the first place. The nature and size of the demonstration makes a significant difference as a large revolution is more likely to require the military to suppress it (if that is what they decide to do). It also has an effect on whether the military responds with violence, as the more large and violent a protest is, as well as the absence of children, the more likely it is that the military will respond with violence. The army’s record of conduct is another factor, as an army that has brutally enforced the rule of the existing regime is unlikely to support a revolution. This is because if the revolution is successful, the military may be held accountable for its past human rights abuses, and other wrongdoings. The popularity of the revolution is another big factor as an uprising that is broadly popular is more likely to have the support of the military. Alternatively, a revolution that is not popular is unlikely to be supported by the military. The last factor from within society is the rebel efforts to win the support of the army. Rebels often realise how crucial the military is to the success of the revolution and will try to get the support of the armed forces.

There are also many forces from the international community that influence the role that the military might play in a revolution. One of these is the potential for foreign intervention. Foreign intervention can help or hinder the existing regime, therefore influencing the role the military plays in the revolution. This played a role in Libya, where foreign military intervention happened, leading to the downfall of the Gaddafi regime. The view that revolution is spreading from country to country (revolutionary diffusion) is also likely to cause the military to support the revolution happening in their own country. Revolutionary diffusion can also have the opposite effect, with it causing the generals to the crack-down on the protesters.  If officers have had foreign military training (foreign exposure) it may make them more sympathetic to the revolutionary forces. However, this is unlikely to override other factors.

We have seen examples of the importance of the role of the military in Syria and Egypt. In Egypt, the military chose not to support the Mubarak regime, instead seizing power for itself. The Egyptian military saw that the regime was not going to last, and saw an opportunity to gain political power. In Syria, the military is still being used by the regime to suppress the rebels. In this case, it appears the military believes that the Assad regime will continue to rule, so the interests of the military are best served by supporting the regime. The military has also been predictable in its brutal suppression of the rebels, as it has participated in violent crackdowns before.

Although the importance of the military can’t be denied, I have a few questions about potential additional factors. Some things I have wondered about are:

-          How ingrained is the military in civilian culture? Does this make a difference?

-          How prestigious is the regular military within society, not just within government? Does this influence how the military behaves?

-          How large is the military as a proportion of society?

The military is an important factor in any revolution, as it can make a break a regime with its support, or lack thereof.