Suchergebnisse

Because of a liberal bias, the social sciences failed to recognize the importance of the military in politics until after WWII. Research in this field still suffers from a weak theoretical & typological basis & from a scarcity of comparative studies. A new typology of the military role in politics is offered, based on five types: servants of the state, pressure group, political force, guardians of the state, & ruling elite. Various theories of causal explanations of military interventions in politics are discussed, with special emphasis on their relationship to the intensity of societal conflict. In considering the effects of military intervention, social scientists tend to support one of two conflicting views: military as promoters of social change vs military as a conservative, pro-status-quo force. Empirical evidence suggests that when popular masses remain passive, military intervention can sometimes promote social change, while in conditions of mass radicalization, the military intervention acts against popular demands & tends to prevent radical social change. For future research, innovative theoretical perspectives & methodology are badly needed. 28 References. AA