This is a very complex topic and the answer on whether or not military governments can be a good thing is very much situational dependent, which in my opinion means the West more often than not should sit back and count to 10 very slowly before they start issuing demands for the military to transition to civilian rule, which is our general default response based on our principles, but to demand a rapid transition without understanding the overall context invites serious and enduring problems.
Externally sponsored military coups are almost always, if not always, a bad option. Military coups sponsored/supported by an external power (usually a state) have been perceived as amoral (rightfully so) and have generally resulted in ineffective and eventually failed governments. In the case of the U.S. sponsored coups, those efforts more often than not resulted in longer term harm to our interests than any short term benefits gained. Hopefully the era of coup making by via external support or intervention is coming an end as a desirable option, but if you believe that the press reports represent reality then it seems this is just wishful thinking.
When we look at Egypt it appears to be an internally motivated military coup with no outside support to the military visible, but of course that doesn't mean they weren't encouraged and supported in various ways by any number of state actors. However, for purposes of debate lets assume it was internal with no external support (intelligence, promises of support, encouragement, financial deals, etc.).
We don't know as much as we think we do. What do most of us really know to be fact? Just because the media excessively covers demonstrations and calls them the will of the people doesn't mean that this media created reality is reality. A camera looks at the world through a soda straw, and media reports can intentionally and unintentionally be very deceptive. We really have no idea if the political activists in the streets represented the majority of the Egyptian people. The media attempted to create the illusion that the 99% movement in the U.S. was supported by the majority, but Americans for the most part were able to see past that attempt to create a media based reality because they had venues other than main stream media to analyze and inform their opinion.
Is the coup legal or illegal? If the sitting government was violating the constitution, could a military intervention actually be legal and desirable? Despite all the negative effects of the military leaving its barracks and getting involved, are there times when a military coup is the lesser of two evils? If the military leaders took an oath to defend the constitution do they have an obligation to intervene if the government is threatening the constitution? There are no easy answers, but as Fuchs wrote this may be simply the lesser of two evils.
Should we push military governments to transition to civilian rule rapidly?
In my opinion it depends, which means we shouldn't have a policy where we automatically disengage because we don't like the smell of the military lead government.
- Does a viable constitution exist which would provide the basis for a civilian government to "rapidly" assume control within an accepted legal structure? If it doesn't, simply holding a flash election will result in little more than mob rule under the guise of a democratically elected government (Iraq for example, and maybe the MB in Egypt?).
- If we're dealing with a nation whose borders were created by European colonists that resulted in an irrational state with a population deeply divided among ethnic lines is it possible to develop a truly functioning democracy (instead of a façade) to begin with?
- Why did I default to democracy when discussing civilian led governments? Is it really the best system in all states? Do we confuse our view of legitimacy with what the citizens of another nation perceive as legitimate? Do we too often exceed our level of understanding of a nation-state and incorrectly push inappropriate solutions based on the U.S. (and West's in general) view of the world? More importantly is our foreign policy making us more or less popular in the world? Seems to me we already lost considerable influence throughout much of Latin America by attempting to push our agenda. In a multipolar world nations realize they have other options than partnering with the U.S., but I'm not sure our foreign policy community has grasped that fact yet.
I took the long route to the bottom line, but in some rare cases I suspect a military led government "could" be better than some other options. Even if it isn't better, once one exists, we need to slow our roll before we demand a rapid transition to civilian rule. In many cases returning a legitimately elected government that was illegally ousted by the military is absolutely the right thing to do, but not all cases are that simple.
Assuming Bashir's government eventually falls in Syria, do we really think the ethnic killing will stop while an interim civilian government develops a new constitution and prepares for elections? Perhaps it is more reasonable to think that a military coup and interim military government will be necessary to stop the projected continued mass blood letting, and only after the massive ethnic killing stops and some degree of order is imposed, should an interim civilian government form?
I don't have any idea what the right answer is, but I do know our simplistic approach based on our desire to rapidly install a civilian government too often fails.
Bookmarks