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".
The study is an attempt to explain the theoretical underpinnings of military involvement in Third World politics. It raised such pertinent questions as to why military rule occurred more in Less Developed Countries than in developed ones and why is direct military involvement in politics condemned globally even when some appeared to have fared better than the prevailing corrupt civilian administrations. These questions were clarified in a study that is basically qualitative in nature using various theories of military intervention in politics to argue that so long as Third World politicians remain intransigent to their societal problems, military involvement in politics will continue to be a phenomenon to be reckoned with notwithstanding that the involvement of the Armed Forces in political life of the people has not reflected any improvement in governance. The work concludes that it would be difficult for any military rule to perform better than civilian-led administrations being a body taught to fight and kill than to govern. DOI:10.5901/mjss.2014.v5n20p2047
Civil-military relations is one of the most challenging dimensions to deal with regarding North Korea. Since 1998, Pyongyang's foremost policy has been declared as "military-first." While experts debate the precise meaning and significance of this policy, considerable consensus exists that it gives the leading role to the Korean People's Army (KPA. Hence, military leaders in the Democratic People's Republic of Korea are very powerful and influential figures. Who are they? What kind of power and influence do these leaders wield, and how do they exert it? How do KPA leaders interact with dictator Kim Jong Il and their civilian counterparts? Mr. Ken Gause sets out to answer these questions in this monograph. ; https://press.armywarcollege.edu/monographs/1710/thumbnail.jpg
This thesis sought to explain military intervention in Pakistan's politics. Theoretically, the thesis maintained that the existing accounts on Pakistan's civil-military relations (CMR) demote agency, de-emphasize rationality and ignore context. Similar shortcomings were identified in the literature on CMR theory except the actor-oriented work. Thus, the study built its agency model of Pakistan's civil-military relations. Methodologically, the model was married to the method of analytic narrative whereby each of the five coups was given an analytical narrative treatment. In addition, primary and secondary sources were used. Both theoretically and empirically, the study posited that at Partition the politicians assumed Pakistan's principalship. However, the former preferred its own interests; the agents saw to their own. Hence, the rational military opted to shirk in 1958. The coup was instrumental for the military to grow economically. As principal,, however, military agency caused another coup in 1969. However, the state disintegrated in December 1971 and, contextually, the politicians' preference prevailed. The latter failed, as principal, to prefer a larger interest. On its part, the rational military shirked in 1977. The coup, caused by its agency, was instrumental for the military to grow economically. In 1999 the military agency caused another coup to punish the shirking politicians. This further added to the principal's economic strength. Surprisingly, the judiciary shirked while preferring a larger interest in 2007. The military's agency caused another coup. The latter facilitated its economic interests. In sum, the thesis has maintained that coups were a function of military agency. Coups were rational in nature and political in character. Moreover, they benefited the military economically. In addition, the study posits that its hypotheses hold on empirical ground. As regards generalizations of these findings, the present research posits that military intervention in politics can be explained (cross-nationally), by taking military agency and rationality into account. Furthermore, the hypotheses of present research could be tested cross-culturally since their testability shall not compromise the importance of context.
The states have to adjust to the pressure exerted by the 'international'; yet impact of the 'international' on national politics has been ignored by mainstream international relations theories. This study uses a framework of "Uneven and Combined Development" to investigate the impact of Pakistan's inclusion in the United States led defense pacts on Pakistan military's role in domestic politics from 1954 to 1958. The central finding of this research is that the United States preferred Pakistan military over political leadership in Pakistan to checkmate communism in Asia as well as to stop communist political parties gaining power in Pakistan. By participating in these international pacts, the role of Pakistan military expanded in politics which culminated in the first martial law (1958).
U.S. troops withdrew from the forward operating location (FOL) in Manta, Ecuador, in 2009 after a decade of presence. The withdrawal was celebrated not only by Ecuadorian activists, who had protested the FOL since it was established in 1999, but also by anti-U.S. military base movements around the world, which became connected through the transnational "No Bases" network and considered this a "people's victory." To advance our understanding of the role of such movements and their agency in U.S. military base politics, I borrow from civil resistance literature that holds a pluralistic view of power and examine the campaign to close the FOL in Manta through the lens of this conceptual framework, which revealed some limitations to the approach. I discuss areas that require further improvements in order for the framework to offer more rigorous explanations of anti-U.S. military base campaigns and their outcomes.
The tradition of the Russian and Soviet militaries has made them important elements in the political balance of power at this turning point of history. The same tradition, however, requires that the military's political intervention be legitimized by a civilian authority and/or political movement. The military in Russia is likely to continue to seek political influence, but the thrust of this search will be narrowly limited, unless it is combined with a strong Russian nationalist movement. ; Naval Postgraduate School, Monterey, California. ; http://archive.org/details/militaryinfluenc00tsyp ; OM&N Direct Funding ; NA ; Approved for public release; distribution is unlimited.
During the last two centuries, the military in Latin America has been involved in politics in a characteristic duality of professionalism and political 'calling', by political armies of the right and the left. In both cases, a kind of 'military mystique' prevails, but its content is different. In both cases, the military justifies its involvement as a consequence of its necessary correcting and transforming vanguard role in politics and society. The two characteristics of dual functions (internal and internal security) and dual pathways (professionalism and political missions) are a revolving theme in this article.
In countries transitioning from military to democratic rule, authoritarian legacies often continue to influence politics. Whereas previous research has focused on the institutional causes of such deficiencies, there is a lack of studies examining the role ex-military leaders who re-emerge as civilian presidents have in sustaining authoritarian tendencies. In this article, we begin to fill this lacuna by investigating the question: how and under which conditions do ex-military leaders' political identity constructions affect their tendency to place themselves above politics (i.e. expressing the attitude and behaviour of being superior to democratic rules)? The literature on neo-patrimonialism and post-civil war politics points to the importance of the political identities of ex-militaries, and we propose a theory that highlights the role identity construction plays in shaping elites' decision-making processes. Based on a comparison of two Nigerian presidents, Olusegun Obasanjo and Muhammadu Buhari, we find that ex-generals' tendency to engage in politics from above is largely a function of to what extent they have diversified their political identities beyond their role as "militaries". In this process, the degree of democratic consolidation also seems to play a role; ex-militaries operating in newly established democracies appear to have more opportunities to place themselves above politics.
In: Haesebrouck , T , Reykers , Y & Fonck , D 2022 , ' Party politics and military deployments: explaining political consensus on Belgian military intervention ' , European Security , vol. 31 , no. 1 , pp. 76-96 . https://doi.org/10.1080/09662839.2021.1970537
While a comprehensive body of research provides evidence that politics does not always stop at the water's edge, the question "when does politics stop at the water's edge" has remained largely unanswered. This article addresses this gap in the literature by examining the level of agreement in Belgium's parliament on military deployment decisions. More specifically, the uncontested decisions to participate in the 2011 Libya intervention and the air strikes against the self-proclaimed Islamic State in Iraq are compared with the contested decision to participate in strike operations against IS over Syrian territory. The results of our study indicate that a broad parliamentary consensus will emerge if the domestic political context forces left- and right-leaning parties into negotiating a compromise that takes into account their preferences regarding the scope of the operation and if left-leaning parties have no reason to oppose the operation because it pursues inclusive goals and its international legal justification is not contested.
Military in Pakistan and Bangladesh has been deeply involved in politics all over the history. Since after the birth of both countries, the strong democratic government has not yet been established, due to the continuous involvement of Military in politics. The current research attempts to evaluate the main causes of Military Intervention in two countries. The utilized information of causes has been taken from books, journals, articles, on line materials and other secondary sources. The findings result with regard to the sources of military interventions in politics are the causes of weak political institution, vested interest of the military, legacy of the British army, political corruption and superiority.
