Suchergebnisse

Occasional Paper # 9 ; As countries democratize, newly-elected governments find that they must quickly assert control over the budget, especially the defense budget, if they are to meet their policy goals for all sectors and assert civilian control over the military. Fiscally, the process by which budget decisions are made should be structured so that defense spending does not "break the bank" by exceeding the government's capacity to pay. Sectorally, defense should compete with other government ministries so that the final overall budget is a monetary expression of the priorities of the nation, its choice between "guns and butter." Within the defense sector, the allocation of resources for training, personnel, and equipment should reflect the roles and missions for the armed forces established during a process of national security planning. Finally, the power of the purse provides civilians with a key lever of control over the military: government preferences are more likely to be taken into account when they are backed by the provision or withholding of resources. ; The Center for Civil-Military Relations, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

Occasional Paper # 8 ; Democratically elected representatives in a country's legislature have an important role to play in formulating defense and military policy and monitoring its implementation (i.e., oversight). Legislative participation in these areas is desirable for a number of reasons. Democracy as "rule by the people" is enhanced by input from all elected officials, not just those who comprise the executive branch. The needs of society and the military are more likely to be balanced to the extent that representatives from all segments of society are consulted in the policy process. Although consulting multiple actors in the Congress on defense issues may be time-consuming, the end result is usually better and longer lasting policy. The policy produced tends to be better as both the executive and military actors involved are forced to defend their positions publicly. ; The Center for Civil-Military Relations, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

After a transition away from authoritarianism, one of the central challenges facing new democratic elites is redefining civil-military relations. Among other things, this means writing or revising constitutions and laws that regulate the roles, rights, and obligations of the military so that they conform to the basic democratic principles of accountability to democratically elected leaders and respect for civil liberties.1 Under the preceding non-democratic regimes, militaries were often accustomed to acting in ways that violated these principles, by operating autonomously within the defense arena, playing an important role in non-defense areas, and participating in regime violations of human rights.2 Although writing new laws designed to modify this behavior will not automatically lead to a change, it is a necessary first step. ; The Center for Civil-Military Relations, Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California.

Frontmatter -- Table of Contents -- Foreword -- Acknowledgments -- Introduction -- Part One Actors and Institutions -- Chapter 1 Military Professionalism in a Democracy -- Chapter 2 Legislatures and National Defense: Global Comparisons -- Chapter 3 Ministries of Defense and Democratic Control -- Part Two Roles and Missions of the Military -- Chapter 4 Strategy Formulation and National Defense: Peace, War, and the Past as Prologue -- Chapter 5 The Spectrum of Roles and Missions of the Armed Forces -- Part Three Issues in Civilian Control of the Military -- Chapter 6 Reforming Intelligence: The Challenge of Control in New Democracies -- Chapter 7 Defense Budgets, Democratic Civilian Control, and Effective Governance -- Chapter 8 Conscription or the All-Volunteer Force: Recruitment in a Democratic Society -- Chapter 9 Professional Military Education in Democracies -- Conclusion -- Bibliography -- About the Editors and Contributors -- Index