EBP: Military Rule

MILITARY RULE

Barbara Geddes, Erica Frantz, and Joseph G. Wright

Blog post by Lauren Szolomayer

This specific reading was very wordy and quite difficult to read. In this article the authors talk about how military strongmen, and military regimes are more irrational rulers then civilian rulers. These military strongmen are more likely to "commit human rights abuses and become embroiled in civil wars" and are more likely to be overthrown with force. The article then talks about how military service men are extremely obedient to their superior officers. When an order is given to them they follow it and continue to give their full service to the military. Military dictatorships could be different. When a military strongman abuses his power on its citizens, the rest of the military will over throw him. Its is a bit of a contradiction but it shows that these officers of the military won't be followed completely blindly by the remainder of the military. From this point on military coups can still hold onto the power of the government or they can establish a democracy. 

The article then goes into a complex comparison of theories on how military coups lead countries. One theory mentions that most military men and women come from middle and lower class families and living situations. Not many upper class citizens are apart of militaries so when military coups take over power they tend to focus on issues pertaining to the middle and lower class. Another theory, focuses on ethnic groups and states that some countries have two separate ethnicities, one dominating the previous government, and the other dominating the army. This can cause conflict between unfair motivations for one ethnicity and less for another. 

The article then moves on to try and define the term 'military rule', stating that there are three different definitions of the term. One being, “dictatorship led by a military officer, regardless of the make-up and influence of the rest of the group”. This definition is called the “military-led autocracy”. An example of a military-led autocracy could be Uganda under the rule of Idi Amin. The second, “dictatorships led by somewhat collegial bodies representing the officer corps (rule by the military institution), in which multiple officers influence decisions making.” and the last definition, “military strongman rule, refers to the subset of dictatorships in which power is concentrated in the hands of a a single military officer.”

Later in the article, I was intrigued to find some theorists views about military regime's use of the military. It would be assumed that a military regime would have access to the military at all times and would use it a lot more frequently than a nonmilitary regime. The article disagreed and stated that statistical evidence found that there wasn't a clear relationship between the two. Another interesting section of the article said that some military-led regimes use international issues to unite their state together as a whole.

In the last section of the article, the authors talk about how military regimes end. This was also quite surprising. It was found that most military regimes leave on their own, stating “officers care more about the unity of the fighting force then than they do about remaining in power”, and that when military regimes leave power peacefully they normally start a democracy and hold elections.

What I got from this article is that not all military-led regimes are bad. It depends on it's leading officers and willingness of the entire military to cooperate. It's interesting to see that most military-led governments are left as democracies. These governments don't make major news headlines like military dictatorships. There are also a lot of factors in military regime that could make it unsuccessful. After this article, I believe that, like most things, you have to go with your instincts.