Military rule as an ideology in itself

Thande

Donor
Generally speaking, the purpose of military dictatorships is to prevent ideological movements (usually left-wing ones) from gaining power in a country. Witness various coups in South America historically and SE Asia more recently.

Now, sometimes people who win power through a military coup may then go on to create their own ideology (e.g. Gaddafi, various Africans) but this is then no longer military rule. Equally, North Korea, although part of its ideology is being a very militarised society, is not a military dictatorship.

However, Burma. Or Myanmar if you're hopped up on frantic political correctness. It doesn't matter. We now reach the point of this thread. Burma's military dictatorship - sometimes described as a 'military republic' - appears to have invented its own ideology, in which the purpose of military rule, to paraphrase Orwell, is military rule. Voltaire's Prussia taken to the extreme.

So, I wonder if we can have some sort of exportable ideology which states that countries should be pragmatically run by generals and democracy should be suppressed?
 
So, I wonder if we can have some sort of exportable ideology which states that countries should be pragmatically run by generals and democracy should be suppressed?

Well, you could try some flavor of fascism that focuses even more on the aggressive nationalism, stating that only the generals are qualified to lead the fight against all the inferior foreigners.
 
But that's still Fascism.

How about this: The military, being the defender of society, also has a responsibility to defend that society in all ways, not just militarily. The answer to this is obviously to have the military take over government.
 
Hmm if only someone could find a way to get Starship troopers to work that may be the perfect government that is an ideology, and yet strictly a military nation.
 
Starship Troopers isn't what you're looking for here. In that society, military officers could neither hold office nor even vote. Only civilian vets could do that.
 
Starship Troopers isn't what you're looking for here. In that society, military officers could neither hold office nor even vote. Only civilian vets could do that.

Oh, don't let facts get in the way of theory.

It might wind up looking something Turkey, but with a weaker or less polarized international situation.
 
Something like this:

  1. The country needs leaders.
  2. The only way to prove your leadership is in battle.
  3. Therefore our most successful general should lead the country.
  4. Our leading general needs a staff to carry out his orders.
  5. The organisation best at carrying out orders is the victorious general's army.
  6. Therefore the army should form the administration of the country.

The problem is point two is illogical. There are other ways to prove your leadership abilities, such as business, sport or even politics. Perhaps a country at war might feel point two was valid.
 
Well the biggest problem isn't getting such an ideology. It has happened historically, and ideologies tend to be self-justifying if they can get into a position of power. And small states have a tendency to end up with the same models of governance as their overwhelmingly large neighbors for internal reasons or by imposition, so that takes care of the exportable issue to some degree.

Unfortunately there's a serious limit to this. Militarists (for lack of a better word) are going to be convinced that their system of governance is best, as with all ideologies, and that will make some enthusiastic about spreading the idea. But the purpose of a military is to fight for the State against other states, and that will always put a limit on the ability to spread the ideology. It's an inherently inward looking system like Fascism or National-Socialism, as opposed to an international one like Communism or Liberal Democracy.

And it ought to be pointed out to a few posters here that fool-proof logic is not a requirement for ideology. Far from it. You need to get people enthusiastic (and often angry). You need some educated people who can spread a thoughtful-sounding layer of BS over the gaps. That is all.
 
But that's still Fascism.

How about this: The military, being the defender of society, also has a responsibility to defend that society in all ways, not just militarily. The answer to this is obviously to have the military take over government.

Umm.

Sun Yat-sen espoused a period of military rule until the nation was ready for political tutelage, which was necessary before democracy.

Does that count?
 
How about this: The military, being the defender of society, also has a responsibility to defend that society in all ways, not just militarily. The answer to this is obviously to have the military take over government.

I've heard a version of that put forward quite seriously. The argument goes that the fundamental flaw in Democracy is what happens when 51 percent of the population vote to exterminate the other 49 percent?

Various countries have a variety of answers to that unsettling question. A common one is for people to bury their head in the sand and simply keep repeating it won't happen. In the US we have the Supreme Court that would rule such a decision as being Unconstitutional. Other countries have other fixes.

Now, the Army argues as follows. The government represents the political party that holds a majority and thus the people who voted for that party. But the Army represents the whole population, after all, everybody in the country supports the armed forces by paying their taxes, if the country has conscription, all the people are likely to serve in it. When the army goes to war, it defends all the country, not just the bits it likes. So, the Army defends all the people, not just those who vote for the government.

So, when the government goes mad and passes a "51 percent will exterminate 49 percent" style law, then it is the duty of the Army to act against the government who passed that law and thus protect the minority. This, of course, means removing that government and trying to make sure that any future government doesn't get similar ideas.
 
Anybody who has served in the military is immun to the allure of the military. Militaries tend to be burocratic and generally annoying. So what about females who find men in uniforms attractive invent a ideology promoting men in uniform running the country? :D
 
Top