I was reflecting on the topics that we focused on this week and came across this article that examines the relationship between military regimes and conflict initiation. More specifically it focuses on how territorial threats impact both the emergence of military regimes and their propensity for conflict. Some of the primary points that emerged from this article were:
How military regimes tend to be more likely to emerge and persist in the states that face territorial threats. These threats often drive states to adopt militaristic policies and expenditures, therefore creating an environment where the military gains significant political leverage.
The persistence of territorial threats helps to maintain military regimes by providing a continuous rationale for their power. The ongoing security challenges allow a justification for the maintenance of a strong military presence, furthermore, this reinforces the regime's position and reduces the likelihood of a regime change or potential democratisation.
This raised many questions for me, the most significant ones being: to what extent does public perception of external threats influence support for military regimes and their policies? Also, how do the impacts of territorial threats on military regimes compare with the effects on other types of authoritarian regimes - and are there significant differences in how these threats influence regime type and behaviour?
Reference:
Kim, N. K. (2018). Are Military Regimes Really Belligerent?. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 62(6), 1151-1178.
Good find Izzy! This actually argues that it's not military regimes that are more aggressive, but that it's the environment of these regimes, so in a sense inverts our question.
ReplyDeleteHi Izzymay!
ReplyDeleteThe primary points you mentioned based on the article you read are interesting. It made me come up with some of my own questions that I would like to see if the article elaborates on. For example =
1. The first main point consults how territorial threats lead to military regimes being more likely to emerge and pursue military actions. Are there any specific conditions under which these territorial threats are more likely to lead to the persistence of these regimes? And how do their responses based on these threats possibly differ from other democratic or authoritarian regimes? Is it more extreme?
2. Regarding how these territorial threats may alter the response of militaristic regimes, I wonder whether these are also used as a possible tool for political propaganda to maintain their power and to justify continuing to invest in military power. Could an example of this be North Korea or possibly even Pakistan and their perceived threats from India? This might be an interesting case study.