• Print Edition
• Archive
  • Editorial
  • Monitor
  • Focus
  • Media
  • Tribune
  • InWEnt Forum
  • Debate
• About us
• Index
• Links
• Subscription

 

• RSS
• Twitter

 

[ Military ]

Depressing reality

When I first visited officers’ quarters in a suburban area of Kolkata I was stunned. After months of research in this megacity of perhaps 15 million people, I had grown used to public spaces being neglected at best, but more often in a state of dismal decay. By contrast, this military complex was well maintained, even pleasant. “What did you expect, don’t you know the military is the most reliable state institution in India?”, I was told.

By their nature, armies are organised in a hierarchical order and subject to strict discipline. Aside from their weapons, that is what makes them so power - ful. People who suffer from dysfunctional governance are often enthralled by military efficiency. In turn, some commanders are prone to employing their military muscle in domestic affairs. Normally, they claim to be serving the common good, while actually lining their own pockets and protecting special interests. Argentina, Nigeria, Pakistan and many other countries have suffered under such regimes. What makes the Indian military special is not that it operates so smoothly – that is no different in most other developing countries. What is remarkable is that Indian generals never seriously threatened their country’s democracy. This is probably a legacy of Mahatma Gandhi’s non-violent and pluralistic ap- proach to national liberation and independence.

Of course, there is no excuse for the violent excesses Indian security forces be- came guilty of during crises in regions like Kashmir or Punjab. While the pri- macy of civilian political leadership was never in doubt in India, the trouble spots illustrate that armed forces and the state are more intimately related than pacifists would like. Indeed, at the core of any state is its monopoly on the legitimate use of violence, as sociologist Max Weber already taught a cen- tury ago. Where a state is unable to assert this monopoly, a democratic way of life with a minimum of social fairness is impossible. It was typical of medieval Europe that armed noblemen plundered countries and people at will. Today, it is a sign of civilised peace that soldiers play a mini - mal role in day-to-day life. Governments of EU members depend on demo- cratic mobilisation, not the military variety.

Political influence today stems from economic productivity, scientific and technical knowledge, the power of persuasion, organisational skills and many other civilian factors. The path from the past to today was a long and complicated one, however. Ger- many is a particularly dismal example. Only after its defeat in World War II did the army become discredited as a force in domestic affairs. Prussia’s militarist tradition was so strong that it survived its catastrophic failure in World War I largely unscathed, even as the monarchy had to give way to the – alas rather unstable – Weimar Republic.

In the course of history, the colonial powers of Britain and France gradually became more democratic at home. But overseas, the military remained cru- cial to enforcing their rule. In many developing countries, the military is still a powerful state within the state. History shows us, depressingly, that gener- als only rarely use unelected power to promote modernisation. South Korea was a rare exception, not the rule. And even there, the military lost authori- ty and credibility after years of eco- nomic growth that coincided with harsh political repression. For good reason: at least in the long run, legiti- mate power does not stem from gun barrels.

D+C, 2008/10, Editorial, Page 354