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
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.
Latest Answers