Can Military Governments be a good thing (for a while)?

[davidbfpo]

The Curmudgeon asked:

Do military coups and temporary military governments get a bad rap?

Yes, deservedly so from my West European viewpoint and not being personally subject to such military-led governance, let alone the inevitable coercion, torture, corruption and more so I am very lucky.

Not to overlook in my adult life two European nations had such rule, Greece (1967-1974), maybe the quasi-military regime in Portugal and Spain (1935-1975). It is rare for the military to voluntarily relinquish its 'rule' and 'right' to intervene - as events in Cairo today indicate. IIRC Nigeria had one such 'return to barracks'.

Does the military, in places like Turkey and Thailand, ensure a less bloody transition than other alternatives.

I don't know much about Thailand, but Turkey appears to have voluntarily accepted Ataturk's rule after the defeats in WW1 and more. The military until very recently remained the 'guardian' of his legacy, with coups in May 1960 (till September 1961), 1971 (May 1971-September 1973) & 1980 (September 1980-November 1983). All dates are approximate.

Yes many countries face a 'bloody transition' when faced by revolution, instability and political competition. Whether it is 'less' than the alternatives is a moot point. Chile, Argentina and Brazil come to mind.

Is this something Westerner's should take another look at (or even tacidly encourage)?

No, no. Let the people, Egyptians today, make their own decisions. Has Western involvement, however active or 'mild' helped a transition and the development of what each nation seeks. The USA in particular readily forgets 'self-determination', let alone liberty and freedom.

Have we not learnt a military follows its own path, no doubt with "spin" and megaphones announcing the emergency action is to preserve 'Western values', fight communism and extremism?

Just read a Tweet by Majid Nawaz, of Quilliam Foundation, an ex-radical (Hizb-ut-Tahir) who was imprisoned in Eygpt and now a Liberal-Democrat party member here:

SECULAR military dictator better than hard line Islamist denying democracy

[Madhu]

....on autocratic governments vs. tyrannical governments?

Am I getting this wrong?

Anyway, when did we ever stop supporting military governments if we thought the military was the magical key to stability? (Witness our relationship with Musharraf, who did a number on us).

This might be entirely too glib, but is Egypt about to "go Pakistan", or is this more like the run up to the Algerian civil war? I hope neither.

For most of the 1980s, as perhaps Ronald Reagan's most influential foreign-policy adviser, she supported military interventions, covert proxy wars, the coddling of anti-communist dictators and the full-blooded, unapologetic pursuit of America's national interests. Asked 20 years later about Iraq, old age or greater wisdom seemed to have tamed her. George Bush junior was “a bit too interventionist for my taste”. As for moral imperialism, “I don't think there is one scintilla of evidence that such an idea is taken seriously anywhere outside a few places in Washington, DC.”

Certain sentences from her most famous article, “Dictatorships and Double Standards”—written on her summer holiday in France, published in Commentary magazine in November 1979—now induce a sigh. “No idea holds greater sway in the mind of educated Americans than the belief that it is possible to democratise governments, anytime and anywhere, under any circumstances.” “Decades, if not centuries, are normally required for people to acquire the necessary disciplines and habits. In Britain, the road [to democratic government] took seven centuries to traverse.” “The speed with which armies collapse, bureaucracies abdicate, and social structures dissolve once the autocrat is removed frequently surprises American policymakers.” Yes indeed.

http://www.economist.com/node/8447241

Some events are beyond the ability for us to control, guide, etc. We can only watch events play out and keep mind of basic interests. And each event is contingent. And both support for hurried democratization AND support for military coups has come back to haunt us, again and again.

[slapout9]

The situation in Egypt may be the most current experiment on Military Government, we will have to see how it turns out. IMO it can be a good thing if done in accords with the original concept as was presented in the USMC Small Wars Manual.

[Firn]

I was going to write the same thing. They seem to have decided to keep a relative low profile - if it can be called that way - and avoided the usual arrests.

We will see.

[Dayuhan]

A good thing? No. A necessary thing, maybe, in some very rare circumstances, if the people to be governed accept it.

Anybody who starts thinking a military government would be a good thing for somebody else needs to be hit hard on the head before he has any chance to put that idea into action.

[TheCurmudgeon]

I don't have a copy and would love to know.

As far as I can see, military coup is just another option for a bloodless transition. It depends on the motivation of the military. I don't think it needs to be automatically and arbitrarily attacked.

I like the model the Egyptian's have take so far. The choice of the head of the Supreme Constitutional Court was a nice choice.

For a long time the Turkish military guaranteed secular government that Ataturk tried to establish. That kind of dedication to an ideal can act as a stabilizing factor or it can be used to gain personal political power.

[jmm99]

The OP title, Can Military Governments be a good thing (for a while)?, immediately brought to mind two questions:

1. "Good thing" for whom ?

2. "Good thing" for what ?

Each has, I expect, a dozen or more answers; as well as a similar plethora of answers for the counterpoint questions:

1. "Bad thing" for whom ?

2. "Bad thing" for what ?

--------------------------
Links to USMC Small Wars Manual (Wiki, Manual and NWC Book Review). The most important concept is the end goal, chap. 15, "Withdrawal".

I expect a spirited discussion would evolve from consideration of whether the USMC interventions in Cuba, Haiti, the Dominican Republic, and Nicaragua were "good things" or "bad things".

Regards

Mike

[slapout9]

I don't have a copy and would love to know.

As far as I can see, military coup is just another option for a bloodless transition. It depends on the motivation of the military. I don't think it needs to be automatically and arbitrarily attacked.

I define good as being better than a decent into internal Civil War. The Army appears to be trying to preserve the primarry purpose of Government which is to Protect and Provide the

jmm99 has provided several references for the manual. Chapter 13 on Military Government appears to be what the Egyptian Army is in so far as they are being selective as to who and what is replaced until elections can be established.

[Firn]

I was going to write the same thing. They seem to have decided to keep a relative low profile - if it can be called that way - and avoided the usual arrests.

We will see.

I was completely right, they only took a great deal of key members into costudy. Morsi is still a free man, so far.

Egypt's new military rulers have arrested the Muslim Brotherhood's supreme leader, security sources say, and issued warrants for up to 300 other members hours after ousting the elected president, Mohamed Morsi, and taking him and his aides into military custody.

The day after a momentous night in Cairo has revealed the full extent of the military overthrow, with key support bases of the Muslim Brotherhood, including television stations, closed down or raided.

Security officials told the Associated Press and Reuters that the Brotherhood's supreme leader, Mohammed Badie, was arrested in a coastal city near the Libyan border on Wednesday and flown to Cairo in a military helicopter.

The Brotherhood spokesman Gehad el-Haddad said he could not confirm the reports because the group had lost their lines of communication to Badie.

@jmm99: Cui bono indeed?

Morsi certainly was elected in a quite democratic fashion but selected to ignore a good deal of that democracy as a sort of fading fashion. Shame on him. Religion alone does in any case not sort out the economy of a country. It is of course impossible to tell how much the last years in government have weakened the brotherhood and how much strenght they can win from this coup.

[TheCurmudgeon]

Being a military man, I would like to think that the military that understands its role as a servant of the country (however you define THAT term), can step in when the alternative is a decent into civil war. There has to be other options.

I wonder if things had been different in Syria had the military not sided with Assad. I realize that is fantasy, but it begs the question of when the military has a duty to protect the population, even from its own government.

I take an oath to the Constitution, and then to the President and the Officers appointed over me. I prefer to think that, in other parts of the world, military men think the same way. I realize this has shades of "Starship Troopers", but reality can be stranger than fiction.

[Firn]

Looking at my sig there have been indeed some cases, where a quicker execution of what the intellect dictated would have saved first the one of democracy and later the very own.

... "We need officers capable of following systematically the path of logical argument to its conclusion, with disciplined intellect, strong in character and nerve to execute what the intellect dictates"

General Ludwig Beck (1880-1944);
Speech at the Kriegsakademie, 1935

Thankfully Europe today is a different continent despite the big crisis. Mr Bunga bunga and a mad Magyar.

[ganulv]

Morsi certainly was elected in a quite democratic fashion but selected to ignore a good deal of that democracy as a sort of fading fashion.

Even so, does that justify removing him from office in an illegal manner? I feel like one of corollaries of adopting a democratic system is accepting that voters are going to make the wrong decision at times.

Religion alone does in any case not sort out the economy of a country.

As painful as it would have been for the people of Egypt to let the Morsi stagnation continue, I have to believe that with enough time many of his supporters would have come to accept exactly what you are saying. (Not all of them would have, admittedly. I’m an American. I know that ideology can blind people to facts. )

Al-Qaeda has been saying for years that democracy will never give an Islamist party the opportunity to succeed. Whatever favors the Egyptian military may have just done for their country’s economy may have been matched by the favors done for Al-Qaeda.

It is of course impossible to tell how much the last years in government have weakened the brotherhood and how much strength they can win from this coup.

I did a short post on my blog [LINK] questioning whether ‘coup’ is the best word for what happened in Egypt. I’m not saying that I know the right word, just that I suspect that coup might not be it.

[davidbfpo]

This thread posed a general question before recent events in Egypt and a separate thread is about to be started on the developing situation in Egypt. The title is 'Egypt: has the Spring ended?'

A number of the posts here on Egypt will be moved to the new thread.

[carl]

Even so, does that justify removing him from office in an illegal manner? I feel like one of corollaries of adopting a democratic system is accepting that voters are going to make the wrong decision at times.

That corollary works in a country where the voters can reverse their mistake when the next election comes around. If they elect a 'one man, one vote, one time' outfit that opportunity will never come. That is when certain armies step in, as in Algeria and Turkey. The world would have been a lot better off if the Heer had stepped in in 1933.

Al-Qaeda has been saying for years that democracy will never give an Islamist party the opportunity to succeed. Whatever favors the Egyptian military may have just done for their country’s economy may have been matched by the favors done for Al-Qaeda.

I don't think doing things so that AQ can't say 'gotcha' is a winning game. No matter what happens or happened they would always say it is somebody else's fault and they should run things. After all Allah is on their side. Just ask 'em.