"A teacher asked her student, 'Does anyone know where the elephant was found?'Gareng who likes to prank, pointed his finger, and answered, 'They’re so big, I didn’t think they could get lost!'""Civilian leaders are the architects, designing the framework of national security policies and strategies, while the military acts as the builders, constructing and implementing those plans with precision and expertise. Civilian oversight is like the gardener, nurturing the soil of democracy and ensuring that the military grows within defined boundaries, while the military acts as the guardian, protecting the garden of national interests from external threats," Seruni went on."Thomas C. Bruneau and Scott D. Tollefson explore the challenges and mechanisms of ensuring democratic oversight of the military. They address the critical question of how democratic societies can maintain effective control over their armed forces while respecting the need for military autonomy in operational matters. They discuss the complexities of civil-military relations in democratic states, emphasizing the need for a balanced approach that safeguards democratic principles while ensuring national security. They highlight the importance of transparency, accountability, and checks and balances in maintaining effective civil-military relations.They refer to Niccolo Machiavelli, in his masterful treatise on The Art of Rule, Il Principe, emphasized the necessity for civilian leaders to be involved with and develop expertise in matters on the use of armed force, not only in wartime but also in times of peace.Unlike the hypothetical autocrat of sixteenth-century Europe, democratic leaders in the modern world must of course have many other objects, thoughts, and subjects of study than warfare alone, but a president or a prime minister who ignores the subject altogether may be risking his or her country’s security or sovereignty itself.Bruneau and Tollefson emphasise that only via democratically established institutions can the armed guardians of a state’s security be guarded against their organizational impulse to take over the reins of government. It is only through the effective design and use of these institutions that civilians may assert control. It is indeed the case that 'the devil is in the details,' and it is only civilians with an understanding of these details who will be able to craft and maintain institutions in such a way as to play a central role in the policymaking process.Politicians are seldom interested in becoming experts in national security and matters in the armed forces. Furthermore, most countries lack an institutionalized civil service that can offer experts in national security and defence issues the career continuity and stability that would encourage them to fi ll positions in the executive branch (primarily, but not exclusively, in a ministry of defense) and the legislature. Consequently, civilian control of the armed forces in most Third World democracies is more of an aspiration than a reality.The great range of military roles and missions these days has not only enhanced the need for active civilian involvement in national security decision-making but also increased the possibility that civilians without military experience might develop the expertise necessary to play a leading role in the national security realm. In some operations, such as military support to civilian authorities and intelligence analysis, civilian experts can easily be as knowledgeable as military officers. In others, such as peace support operations, military tasks are highly specialized at the operational level, but the missions’ foreign policy, economic, and social implications mean that civilians have a critically important part to play in their success. It is generally only in traditional territorial defence and at the high end of the combat spectrum that civilians often lack the knowledge and experience boasted by members of the military. Yet military officers often belittle the expertise of the civilians they must work with.Civilian policymakers and lawmakers must fulfill two conditions if they are to overcome any lingering, credible military resistance to cooperation. The first is to interest and educate civilians in these issues, and the second is to institutionalize a system of public service in which these specialists can find stable employment where their expertise will be valued. The education of civilians can be accomplished through training, both in-country and abroad. The establishment of a professional civil service is a more difficult hurdle, but one approach might be for other nations to offer foreign military assistance specifically to create and even temporarily fund such positions.At the international level, civilian control in democracies is now virtually expected and makes interaction in military matters between the smaller and larger states, including the United States, easier. Many international military missions must take into account civilian governmental and nongovernmental organizations and the media, tasks civilians generally have an easier time with than do military officers. Domestically, civilian involvement and control in defence issues can enhance perceptions of legitimacy for the military and lead to improvements in such key areas as funding and recruitment. If a democracy’s population views the army as alien from civil society, a holdover from the bad old days, or as fulfilling no real purpose, it will be no surprise that the armed services have trouble recruiting high-quality officers and obtaining resources for equipment, training, and operations. Elected offi cials in the executive and the legislature, supported by a cadre of expert advisers, must be interested in and informed about national security and defence if they are to maintain control over an effective military organization.As the world grows smaller through global communications networks, interdependent financial markets, and increasingly powerful trade protocols, democratic nations find themselves and their domestic institutions are expected to cooperate ever more closely in the military arena, through peace and stability support operations, shared intelligence, international police actions, and coalition warfare. To act as effective partners, these countries must share an ethos of democratic civilian control over the armed forces and promote the internal structures that will allow them to do so. The better we understand the reasons why good civil-military relations flourish or fail, the better the older, stabler democracies will be able to assist their newer counterparts to forge institutions that will enable them to succeed at this challenging task.The relationship between democratic institutions and military forces is crucial for the stability, security, and democratic integrity of a state. In a democratic state, civil-military relations are to maintain clear civilian control where democratically elected civilian leaders have ultimate control over the military to uphold democratic principles and prevent the military from gaining undue influence over political matters and establishing strong institutions, such as legislative bodies, that can provide effective oversight of military activities and budgets to ensure accountability and transparency.The primary role of the military should be national defence and security. Engaging in civilian roles can distract from this mission and potentially lead to conflicts of interest. Military involvement in civilian roles can lead to politicization, where the military becomes a tool for political purposes rather than a neutral defender of the state.The military can play a valuable role in emergencies, such as natural disasters, where its logistical capabilities and resources can provide crucial support to civilian authorities. In times of public health emergencies, like pandemics, the military's organizational capabilities can assist in logistics, medical support, and maintaining order. Any military involvement in civilian roles should be governed by clear guidelines and limited to temporary, well-defined tasks. There should be a clear exit strategy to return the military to its primary defence role. Even when the military engages in civilian roles, civilian authorities should retain leadership and decision-making power to ensure that democratic principles are upheld. Prolonged or extensive military involvement in civilian roles can undermine civilian control and lead to the erosion of democratic institutions. The public may start viewing the military as a political actor, which can damage its reputation as an impartial and professional institution dedicated to national defence.In a democratic state, the primary role of the military should be to safeguard national defence and security while respecting civilian oversight and the rule of law. While the military may play a role in certain civilian tasks, especially in emergencies, such involvement should be limited, temporary, and conducted under strict civilian control to prevent the erosion of democratic principles and ensure that the military remains a neutral and professional force dedicated to the protection of the state and its citizens.The issue of whether police officers or military personnel should be allowed to serve in civil society positions is a complex and often debated topic. Opinions on this matter vary widely and are influenced by cultural, legal, and political contexts.Police and military personnel often possess strong leadership skills, discipline, and a commitment to public service, which can be valuable in civil positions. Their experience in handling crises and emergencies can be beneficial in roles that require quick decision-making and calm under pressure. They can contribute to enhancing public safety and security, especially in roles related to emergency management, public safety, or defence. Allowing veterans or retired police officers to transition into civil roles can facilitate their reintegration into civilian life, providing them with meaningful employment opportunities. Their firsthand experience with security and law enforcement can offer valuable insights in policymaking, particularly in areas like homeland security or public safety.However, there are arguments against allowing police or military personnel in civil positions. There is a concern about maintaining a clear separation between military/police roles and civilian government to avoid undue influence or militarization of civil society. Their training and experiences may lead to biases that could affect their performance in civilian roles, particularly in areas requiring neutrality and a different skill set, like education or social services. The presence of military or police in civil government roles might lead to an erosion of democratic processes, increasing the risk of authoritarianism or the suppression of civil liberties. Citizens might perceive a conflict of interest or feel uncomfortable with military or police personnel in positions of civil authority, fearing a lack of civilian oversight and accountability. Civil positions often require a different skill set and approach compared to military or police roles. The transition might not always be smooth or effective.Some countries have strict regulations and practices to limit or prohibit military personnel and police officers from holding civilian roles to ensure a clear separation between military and civil functions. In the United States, the U.S. enforces the Posse Comitatus Act, which restricts the use of the military in domestic law enforcement. Active-duty military personnel are prohibited from holding elected civil office. It is to prevent the military from gaining undue influence over civilian government and to safeguard democratic processes. Veterans and retired military personnel can run for office and take civil roles once they are no longer in active service.The German Constitution (Grundgesetz) strictly separates the military (Bundeswehr) from domestic law enforcement and civil functions. This separation was instituted post-World War II to prevent the military from influencing politics and to protect democracy. The military can only assist in domestic emergencies under strict constitutional guidelines.Japan’s Constitution includes strict limits on the roles of the Self-Defense Forces (SDF), and there is a clear separation between military and civil functions. Post-World War II reforms aimed to prevent militarism and ensure that the military does not interfere in civilian affairs. The SDF can only be deployed for domestic disaster response under civilian control.Sweden maintains a clear separation between the military and civilian roles, with strict regulations on military involvement in domestic affairs. It is to ensure civilian control over the military and prevent military influence in politics. The military is rarely involved in civilian roles and focuses primarily on national defence and international missions. South Korea enforces a strict division between military personnel and civilian government positions to prevent military influence over politics. This stems from the history of military rule and aims to maintain democratic governance and civilian oversight. Retired military personnel may run for office, but there are restrictions on active service members.Totalitarian countries such as China, Russia and Myanmar are allowing military personnel and police officers to hold civilian roles, either during or after their service, often due to historical, political, or cultural reasons. However, there are also democratic countries that allow it, such as Indonesia, Türkiye and Egypt.The separation of military and police from civilian roles is a crucial element in many democracies to safeguard against undue influence and ensure that civilian governance remains independent and effective. Countries with strict regulations typically aim to uphold democratic principles, prevent authoritarianism, and maintain clear lines between different branches of society.There are several additional considerations for not allowing military and police personnel to take positions in civil society roles, beyond the ones previously mentioned. These considerations often revolve around the need to maintain democratic governance, ensure the professionalism of public services, and prevent conflicts of interest. Military and police training emphasizes authority and discipline, which may conflict with the democratic values of accountability, transparency, and individual rights. Their presence in civil roles could lead to policies and practices that prioritize security over civil liberties. Allowing military and police personnel in civil roles can lead to a concentration of power and potentially foster authoritarian governance, where democratic institutions and processes are weakened.The introduction of military and police personnel into civil roles can shift the focus of these institutions from public service and welfare to security and control, altering their fundamental nature. The militarization of civil institutions can undermine the ethos and operational dynamics of civil services, which are typically geared toward serving the public more flexibly and inclusively.Military and police personnel may prioritize security concerns over public interest, leading to policies that may not align with the needs of the civilian population. Their involvement in civil roles can result in conflicts of interest, particularly in matters related to law enforcement or defence. Military and police forces often operate under different accountability mechanisms compared to civilian agencies. Integrating them into civil roles without robust oversight can increase the potential for abuse of power and corruption.Military and police personnel may lack the specific expertise and professional ethics required for civil roles, which can compromise the effectiveness and integrity of public services. Civil services are expected to operate independently of military and security influences. Allowing military and police personnel in civil roles can undermine this independence, affecting decision-making and policy implementation.The involvement of military and police personnel in civil roles can alter public perception, leading to a culture of fear and suspicion rather than trust and cooperation with public institutions. The presence of military and police personnel in civil roles can create a divide between different segments of society, particularly if these roles are perceived as tools for maintaining control rather than serving the public.Integrating military and police personnel into civil roles can lead to tensions between military and civilian institutions, particularly if there are differences in priorities and operational approaches. The presence of military personnel in civil roles can challenge the authority of civilian leaders and institutions, leading to power struggles and instability.Allowing military and police personnel to take civil roles can lead to the politicization of these institutions, where they become aligned with specific political agendas or factions. The involvement of military and police personnel in politics can polarize society and undermine democratic governance, leading to instability and conflict.In many countries, the constitution or legal framework mandates a clear separation between military and civilian roles. Allowing military and police personnel in civil roles can violate these norms and create legal challenges. The integration of military and police personnel into civil roles can undermine the rule of law by creating parallel structures of authority that operate outside of traditional legal frameworks.Military and police personnel may lack the skills and experience necessary for civil roles, leading to inefficiencies and poor performance. Integrating military and police personnel into civil roles can disrupt the operational effectiveness of civil institutions, leading to delays and inefficiencies in service delivery.The presence of military and police personnel in civil roles can discourage individuals from pursuing careers in civil services, affecting recruitment and retention. The integration of military and police personnel into civil roles can lead to a drain of talent from civil services, as individuals may seek opportunities in the military or police instead.We will continue our discussion in the next episode, biidznillah."Then Seruni recited a poem,Civilians lead with vision clear and wise,While soldiers defend beneath the open skies.In harmony, they guide the nation's might,With laws and respect, they hold the line tight.Each role distinct, yet bound by common good,For peace and justice, they stand as they should.
Citations & References:
- Thomas C. Bruneau and Scott D. Tollefson (Eds.), Who Guards the Guardians and How: Democratic Civil-Military Relations, 20, University of Texas Press
- Michael C. Desch, Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment, 1999, The Johns Hopkins University Press
