The aim of the talks is to heal the political divide that has plagued Thailand for more than a decade.
Since the earliest development of organized military forces in ancient times, governments, particularly republican or democratic governments, have been vulnerable to either being destroyed, overturned, or subverted by their armies.
All forms of government, from the purest democracies to the most savage autocracies, whether they maintain order and gain compliance by consent or by coercion, must find the means to assure the obedience of their military -- both to the regime in power and to the overall system of government.
At one time or another in the 20th century alone, civilian control of the military has been a concern of democracies like the United States and France, of communist tyrannies such as the Soviet Union and China, of fascist dictatorships in Germany and Italy, and sinceof many smaller states in Africa, Asia, and Latin America.
Civilian control has special significance today more than ever. Throughout the formerly communist world, societies are struggling to build the institutions for democratic governance. NATO has made civilian control a prerequisite for joining the Alliance.
In encouraging democratization, the United States and other western powers use civilian control of the military as one measure of progress toward democratic process.
Control by civilians presents two challenges today: For mature democracies, where civilian control has been strong and military establishments have focused on external defense, the test is whether civilians can exercise supremacy in military policy and decision-making.
The gold coinage retained its value however the bronze coinage of the Empire, which was so essential to local trade and taxation, plunged in size, quality and value, forcing a return to a barter economy. This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. It provides experienced professional opinions about the terrorist attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon. the strategic significance of linebacker ii: political, military, and beyond The first, supreme, the most far reaching act of judgment that the statesman and commander have to make is [rightly to understand] the kind of war on which they.
When the military enjoys great prestige, possesses advanced bureaucratic skills, believes that its ability to fulfill its mission may be at risk, or comes to doubt the civilian leadership, civilians can face great obstacles in exercising their authority.
For the new or newly-emerging democracies without much experience in combining popular government and civilian control, the challenge is more difficult: In many former autocracies, the military has concentrated on internal order, or been deeply involved in political life, sometimes preying on the society rather than protecting it.
Then the chief requirement is to establish a tradition of civilian control, to develop an ironclad system of political neutrality within the military establishment, and to prevent or forestall on a permanent basis any possibility of a coup or military intervention in political life.
The task will still remain to establish civilian control over national security policy and decision-making.
But in the new democracies the challenge is more formidable, for in attempting to gain supremacy over military affairs, civilians risk provoking the defiance of the military, and without sufficient public support, perhaps even military intervention.
The purpose of what follows is to describe briefly certain of the common characteristics or experiences that have, historically, fostered civilian control in democracy. While based mostly on western, and particularly Anglo-American experience, the analysis applies to any society that practices democratic government, or is making the transition to government based upon the sovereignty and will of the people.
Civilian control allows a nation to base its values and purposes, its institutions and practices, on the popular will rather than on the choices of military leaders, whose outlook by definition focuses on the need for internal order and external security.
The military is among the least democratic institutions in human experience; martial customs and procedures clash by nature with individual freedom and civil liberty, the highest values in democratic societies. The military is authoritarian, while democratic society is consensual or participatory.
One is hierarchical, the other essentially egalitarian. One insists on discipline and obedience, subordinating personal needs and desires to the group and to a mission or goal. The other is individualistic, attempting to achieve the greatest good for the largest number by encouraging the pursuit of individual needs and desires in the marketplace and in personal lives, each person relying upon their own talents and ingenuity.
One emphasizes order, conformity, harmony, and homogeneity; the other tolerates, even celebrates, disagreement and diversity of perspective.
Because their most fundamental purpose is to wage armed conflict, military institutions are designed for violence and coercion, and over the centuries have developed the organizational structure, operating procedures, and individual values needed to succeed in war.
Authority in the military emphasizes hierarchy so that individuals and units act according to the plans and decisions of commanders, and can succeed under the very worst of mental and physical circumstances.
Military behaviors are functional imperatives. Military law, for example, endeavors first to promote discipline, and secondarily to render justice. If society were to be governed by the personal ideals or institutional perspectives of the military, developed over centuries to support service to the state and sacrifice in war, then each individual citizen and the national purpose would become subservient to national security, to the exclusion, or at least the devaluation, of other needs and concerns.
The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society, not to define it. While a country may have civilian control of the military without democracy, it cannot have democracy without civilian control.
|Bombing of Dresden in World War II - Wikipedia||British Dictionary definitions for control control verb -trols, -trolling or -trolled tr to command, direct, or ruleto control a country to check, limit, curb, or regulate; restrainto control one's emotions; to control a fire to regulate or operate a machine to verify a scientific experiment by conducting a parallel experiment in which the variable being investigated is held constant or is compared with a standard to regulate financial affairs to examine and verify financial accounts to restrict or regulate the authorized supply of certain substances, such as drugs Show More power to direct or determineunder control; out of control a means of regulation or restraint; curb; checka frontier control often plural a device or mechanism for operating a car, aircraft, etc a standard of comparison used in a statistical analysis or scientific experiment a device that regulates the operation of a machine. From a medieval method of checking accounts by a duplicate register.|
|The Society for Medieval Military History||History Early history In bc the Persian warrior-king Darius Iwho ruled the largest empire and commanded the best army in the world, bowed to the hit-and-run tactics of the nomadic Scythian s and left them to their lands beyond the Danube. The Macedonian king Alexander the Great — bc also fought serious guerrilla opposition, which he overcame by modifying his tactics and by winning important tribes to his side.|
|The causes of war||Jeanne d'Arc of China:|
Every decision of government, in peace and in war -- all choices about national security -- are made or approved by officials outside the professional armed forces: In principle, civilian control is absolute and all- encompassing. In principle, no decision or responsibility falls to the military unless expressly or implicitly delegated to it by civilian leaders.
All matters great and small, from the resolve to go to war to the potential punishment prescribed for a hapless sentry who falls asleep on duty, emanate from civilian authority or are decided by civilians.
Even the decisions of command--the selection of strategy, of what operations to mount and when, and what tactics to employ, the internal management of the military in peace and in war--derive from civilian authority, falling to uniformed people only for convenience or out of tradition, or for the greater efficiency and effectiveness of the armed forces.
In some countries, the military has in practice kept control over much of military life; in others, governments have never managed to develop the tools or the procedures, or the influence with elites or the prestige with the public, to establish supremacy over their armed forces.
For the most part, however, a degree of military autonomy has grown out of the need to professionalize the management of war.Revealing the “Hidden Hand” in Tanzanian Political-Military Affairs: captures the significance of this arrangement clearly: “Police and soldiers enroll in Additional networks formed in the TPDF because of political control as social class became of lesser importance than .
The major effect of the Awakening was a rebellion against authoritarian religious rule which spilled over into other areas of colonial life.
Amidst the growing population of the colonies within the 18th Century and mass public gatherings, charismatic personalities such . Political history of the Roman military. Jump to navigation Jump to search. Part of a series on the: Military of ancient Rome.
BC – AD Structural history. Army From Gaius Marius and Sulla onwards, control of the army began to be tied into the political ambitions of individuals. The conceptions of history have been almost as numerous as the men who have written history. To Augustine Birrel history is a pageant; it is for the purpose of satisfying our curiosity.
This website provides responsible criticism of the 9/11 Commission Report by senior military, intelligence and government officials. It provides experienced professional opinions about the terrorist attacks on the world trade center and the pentagon.
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers.