Suchergebnisse

The nature of the military institution in Brazil, its relations with civilian governments up to 1964, and its use of power since the coup of that year are examined by Alfred Stepan. Throughout his study, while looking at the Brazilian experience, he tests and reformulates implicit and explicit models, propositions, and middle-range hypotheses in the literature of civil-military relations and in political development theory. Professor Stepan's analysis suggests that many of the expectations and hypotheses held by theoreticians and policymakers about the capabilities of the military in moderni

Kemal Ataturk entrusted the safety of Turkey's future to her youth. In effect, however, it has been the armed forces who have been the protectors of the state. In the past 64 years since the founding of the republic in 1923, there have been three major instances of intrusion, albeit reluctantly, by the military in the political arena. In every instance withdrawal to the barracks was undertaken by the officer corps themselves. This article examines two critical factors as they pertain to the role of the Turkish military in politics. One factor is a historical review of civil-military relations and how the armed forces interpret the sanctity of civilian rule. The other examines officer corps' recruitment patterns that might provide clues as to the perceptions of the corps' role in the Turkish political arena.

Some emphasis on Turkish officer corps recruitment patterns, and their self-image and political role perceptions.

In "Military and Politics in Syria (1946-1963): Alliances, Conflicts and Purges", Khouloud Al Zghayare shares an extensiveand detailed analysis of different stages of Syria's contemporary history, focusing on the "consistent processes of exclusion andpurges between and within the military and politics" which impacted and depleted both institutions. It is as a direct consequence of this struggle and its implications that, over a centuryafter the establishment of modern Syria, there remains "no consensus on an inclusive national identity, and no constitutional government subject to separation of powers".

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

China's changing civil-military relations -- PLA politics under Jiang and Hu -- The PLA and national security -- The People's Armed Police -- National defense strategy -- Aerospace power -- China's deep ocean expansion -- Conclusion