Why do (long-term) military governments tend to fuck up?

Latin American governments have a long history of military governments operating at the behest of conservative elites. Most Latin American militaries were not really about fighting wars or repelling invasions, but mostly about maintaining domestic order.

I think that there are a few things going on there. For various reasons, narrow political or economic elites are the most natural constituencies of military rulers. They centralize economic and political power, and so reflect and complement hierarchical military structures.

Once you have a marriage like that, the military government often acts in service to the narrow elite, defending them from all challenges, and pursuing their interests. It becomes a relentless government of aristocracy, by aristocracy, for aristocracy. And when everyone else's interests are being sacrificed to the rapacity of a narrow elite, that's probably not a good thing.

For one thing, it tends to feed kleptocracy, although that's a relatively recent phenomenon.

More to the point - the poor, the middle class, working class, entrepreneurial class, minorities of just about every sort, get the shaft. There's no need to compromise or accommodate any of these. The Military government exercises power as a trump card, so protestors and challengers are equivalent to criminals, and can simply be dropped out of a helicopter.

I think that it is this sort of incredibly narrow and regressive social constituency, and the elimination of any need to negotiate or compromise that makes military states so dysfunctional.

Thinking out loud, I note that the Islamic Military governments departed from the Latin American model, because originally they were all about throwing out the old elites - the Kings and feudal aristocracies, and ushering in Arab socialism. That's Nasserism, the Baathist movement, and Quaddaffi. But in each case, what they seemed to end up doing was growing themselves a new narrow aristocratic elite, out of touch, regressive and corrupt.

African military governments simply came out on top in the scramble for power, employed might makes right, and many simply devolved to keptocracy.
 
Thinking out loud, I note that the Islamic Military governments departed from the Latin American model, because originally they were all about throwing out the old elites - the Kings and feudal aristocracies, and ushering in Arab socialism. That's Nasserism, the Baathist movement, and Quaddaffi. But in each case, what they seemed to end up doing was growing themselves a new narrow aristocratic elite, out of touch, regressive and corrupt.

African military governments simply came out on top in the scramble for power, employed might makes right, and many simply devolved to keptocracy.

Sounds like the Arab socialist military governments did the whole Soviet thing of replacing a ruling elite with another ruling elite that nominally was more concerned with the lower classes, but operated just like the old one.

As for the African military governments, the states they ruled over pretty much started out on shaky foundation to begin with as a result of European colonialism, Cold War meddling between the US & USSR, and lack of economic development. One of the telling things is how few trained officers newly-independent African nations had after independence. The lack of an officer class instilled with modern military values like viewing the military as an apolitical institution probably contributed a lot to the willingness of the first military officers to stage coups in the post-colonial states.
 
Besides being fairly obvious all along

No it is not. There is no "obvious"

its been stated flatly more than a few times.

I didnt notice it I guess.

Never ask a woman her age. Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm going to go hide in a bunker.

You realze that I am a woman, and then you ask me my age?

That is not an intelligent thing to do.

u-seem-mad-y-u-mad-bro.jpg


you called yourself a "witch" so it was well, prompted. I don't see any answers XD
 
Yes it does. The USMJ and the NJP systems works a lot better than the system the civilian side of the nation uses.
I should have said "A just and fair civilian system".

In any case, I don't think Colonel Margarethe Cammermyer, Sergeant Beu Copas or many other servicepersons drummed out under DADT would agree with you.

On another matter, entirly, whenever you have to resort to accusing me of being a child, that is when I know you have exausted legimate arguments.

Do so again and I will be proven correct.
 
Top