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

[TheCurmudgeon]

Dave, how is Cromwell's "coup" remembered in British civil and military history?

[davidbfpo]

Dave, how is Cromwell's "coup" remembered in British civil and military history?

Most history of this period is called 'The English Civil War' and Cromwell's later coup against an elected, Puritan parliament although recorded was not widely known today. It certainly featured in the 1970 film 'Cromwell':http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065593/

This changed when the story of 'The Levellers' became part of a new interpretation of populism and revolutionary aspects of English history, allied with part of the fringe around the 'left':https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levellers

Amidst that difficult time it is important to note and taken from a review of a play in 2012:

It tells the story of the 55-day military coup in the mid-1600s when Cromwell's army took control of Parliament and moved to put King Charles I on trial for treason.

Link:http://www.theweek.co.uk/theatre/497...-military-coup

Context can provide a better answer sometimes; I cite a review of a new 2012 book on Cromwell:

The main theoretical premise of his book, The Noble Revolt, is to put forward a view of the Civil War as basically a coup d’état by a group of nobles or aristocrats who no longer supported the King. According to Diane Purkiss these nobles were ‘driven by their code of honour, they acted to protect themselves and the nation. Names such as Saye, Bedford, Essex and Warwick move from the side-lines to occupy centre stage, as do their counterparts among Scottish peers. It was they and not the rude masses who plucked a king from his throne. Oliver Cromwell, for Adamson, was merely one of their lesser lackeys’.

Link:http://www.history.ac.uk/reviews/review/1254

An article in an Egyptian e-paper actually refers to Cromwell's coup!http://www.dailynewsegypt.com/2013/0...-coup-de-quoi/

Incidentally I doubt that the syllabus at RMA Sandhurst or any other military training place includes this period. We have had other coups too, such as 'The Glorious Revolution':http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glorious_Revolution

[TheCurmudgeon]

Us young colonists lack the context of your history. Most of what I know from that time is from a series of books by Quentin Skinner "The Foundations of Modern Political Thought". In that book i remember some quotes from other military men finding the acts of the King to be against the rights and honor of an Englishman. There is quite a bit about the Levellers and other similar groups in Europe, particularly the Dutch republics. It makes interesting reading for those who think that the idea of individual human rights have always existed but were simply repressed by the European monarchs since time immemorial. The Romans have no history of human rights.

So when I look at places like Egypt today it is easy for me to see shades of Europe circa 1650. That is a simplistic view, but I think there are lessons that can be learned from the machinations that Europe went through before stabilizing politically in the 1950s.

[Bill Moore]

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.

[Madhu]

@ Bill M - that's a great comment.

Context matters a lot (as stated above by the Curmudgeon.) Describing a situation and the complicated nature of changing societies is different than advocating a policy which is where I think I misunderstood the original question.

I'll be honest that as a civilian I get a bit nervous when people in the military start talking about coups being a good thing. I know that's an over-reaction to a theoretical intellectual discussion like this thread but I can't help feeling that way.

The military is sort of its own world in the US--and in other places--and I wonder sometimes if that makes military members more sympathetic to foreign militaries and their narratives, or if narratives are overly influenced by the, well, influence of the military. So many things are going on at the same time and the same military that may be the lesser of evils now was partly responsible for the current mess to begin with.


I wrote the following in a comment that has now been moved to a different Egypt related thread but I am still curious what others think:

IMO, the "mirroring" attitude of the American military--in particular, the Army--caused a lot of problems in "AfPak", especially with regard to old relationships from the time of working with the Pakistan Army and intelligence agencies against the Soviets. Assuming the military in other parts of the world think the same is problematic.

Future historians studying this aspect of the American military, at least circa 2001-2005 or so, are going to have a field day of it, I predict.

But each situation is different and Egypt is not Pakistan. I don't know the Egyptian situation very well so I should probably stick to commenting on South Asia.

This sort of thing always interests me though:

Quote:
Egypt’s ruling military has warned against any interference in its murky economic empire amid a burgeoning power struggle with Islamists who control parliament, state media reported March 28.

The warning comes as the military prepares to hand power to a civilian leader when presidential elections end in June, and as the dominant Islamist Freedom and Justice Party (FJP) pressures the generals to sack the government.

Maj. Gen. Mahmud Nasr, a member of the ruling council, warned that the military “will not allow any interference from anyone in the armed forces’ economic projects,” the official MENA news agency reported.

In the unusually detailed defense of the military’s economic ventures, which include factories and hotels, Nasr said the businesses’ annual revenues were 1.2 billion Egyptian pounds ($198 million).
http://www.defensenews.com/article/2...ness-Interests

I have no friggin' idea really. As others have said, we shall see. Perhaps it is a genuinely popular coup that will lead to some more inclusive government and is one step on the road to better governance, maybe it's just one more chapter of the military behind the scenes from the 1950's onward. When does the clock start on the goodness of enlightened militaries stepping in when needed?



I don't mean the comment to seem overly hostile, I am trying as a civilian to understand how exactly I should think about all of this?

[TheCurmudgeon]

I often feel that political scientists and the military rely on history a bit too much which causes us to have convictions in the way we think that are undeserved. As we watch events unfold in Egypt I would like to reopen the conversation on whether military coups are ever a good thing. I will start with two thoughts:

Madhu points out that, as a civilian, the idea of the military talking about military coups potentially being a good thing is scary. His apprehension is not without merit. Without referring to history I will say that the military is hampered in its ability to deal with a population. Our natural inclination is to use coercion first – up to and including deadly violence.

To Madhu’s point I offer Fuchs and Bill’s counter-point: was a military coup the lesser of two evils. If no one stepped in would Egypt have descended into a civil war with the kind of unrestricted violence seen in Syria? Is it better to have a Leviathan keeping a lid on sectarian hatred until new social norms can be established? If the military backs down now (or is forced to back down by internal or external forces), will unrestricted violence be the inevitable result?

Let’s be clear, I am not talking about external intervention – this is strictly between the Egyptians. But the question and the answers should not be limited to this one situation. Egypt provides a backdrop. At the risk of sounding crass it is an ongoing social experiment. There are other strings that deal specifically with this situation.

Now, while events unfold, without the benefit of hindsight, what are your thoughts?