In light of the Myanmmar military detaining leaders in the country, I wonder: what stops the military from turning their guns around towards the government or citizens, especially if they effectively hold power as a legitimate threat towards civillians?
In: Other
Most western countries and democracies in general base their government on the premise that the military is completely subordinate to the civilian government, and can only act against it when that civilian government undeniably violates the fundamental governing laws of the country.
This system is not the norm everywhere. Some countries instead hold the military as a check on executive power- where the military is empowered to act against the ruling government if deemed fit. In this case, all you need is a majority of military commanders to support acting against the executive branch in order to execute a coup.
There are a lot of different factors that go into preventing this, but the biggest one is that a population ruled by the military under threat of death is effectively a population of slaves, and the military generally comes from that same population. so most militaries are not going to be willing to enslave their own population for long periods of time.
this is one of the main reasons you want to make sure the composition of your military is always pretty similar to the composition of your civilian population. if you have one minority group that makes up a disproportionately large group of the military, they are more likely to attempt to coup. That is what the previous president of the United States was hoping what happened.
Not sure about other countries, but in the US this is the purpose of the 2nd Amendment to the Constitution.
I think this is largely a question of “legitimacy”. Legitimacy in this sense is: why do people think a government is right? Why do they do what the government tells them to?
So first off, do the military think it’s *right* for them to be in charge of a country? In a country like Myanmar, with a history of military rule, it’s probably the case that they do – or at least senior officers. In a country like the US, with a history of civilian rule, most military personnel, from top to bottom, would probably think military rule would be very wrong.
Linked to this is: what advantage does it give them? What do these people want? Money? More military spending? Less dissent? A stronger economy? A unified nation? A military takeover may or may not accomplish these goals. Particularly if it risks external pressure, sanctions, etc..
Second, who else thinks it’s right that the military govern the country? It’s very hard to govern by force alone, especially when you’re talking about soldiers using force on people who might be friends, neighbours, family members. You need the cooperation of the police, bureaucracy, courts, and all sorts of other groups and institutions. So will enough of these people accept military rule as legitimate?
The police are a key part here, since it’s they, not the military, who enforce law on a day-to-day basis – a military coup that’s not supported by the police probably won’t last long.
Simply put, in most western countries, the gain from a military coup and the potential civil war that could come with that would simply not be worth the destruction it could cause. As for less developed countries, there you have to remember how politics works. Its all a resource game. Being at the top of the army will get you a lot of resources, which you would lose if you prove disloyal.
Latest Answers