The Need for a People’s Military

Chris Hollenbeck

With the task of transitioning to democracy being so daunting, it’s no wonder the United States has undergone a policy of nation building so frequently. It seems that because there is no easy way to become a consolidated democracy, and because each state represents a totally different situation with totally different political and social factors, a successful transition to democracy is essentially a roll of the dice.

It could be argued that two of the three traditional prerequisites for democracy hold some weight. I would rephrase and call them democratic catalysts instead of prerequisites, however the idea is the same, that a certain level of capital development and a defined political culture would typically help democratization. For example, a fear explicitly mentioned after certain types of democracies develop is that some of the populace will not receive the benefits of the democracy, and thus will remain in a terribly poor social class without and social mobility. However, if there are pre-established economic industries in a nation that have been successful, they could help spread the wealth to the poorer class. A defined political culture will also help because with a political culture comes a shared identity, and therefore the willingness to fight for the establishment of a system that can be beneficial to multiple parties. A defined political culture can also be beneficial because citizens are already predisposed to be politically active, and thus better capable of keeping their rulers in check because they will stay informed about the policies their elected officials make.

In the case of Latin America, the military has acted as a shortcut to avoid developing a political culture. What I mean is that because the strength of the military could be counted on for overthrowing an unpopular regime, there was no need to develop a political culture, or at least one that included a large portion of the population. Because of this, revolution and reform styles of transition were largely ineffective because the winning populace would immediately establish a single party system that would inevitably exclude a large portion of the rest of the citizens, or the party that was put in power would not adapt to the changing needs of the citizens and would thus require a new regime change.

If, however, the populace was committed to developing an inclusive democracy that would not discriminate against any political party and would respect the results of all elections and allow universal suffrage. Perhaps it’s the belief that revolution is possible because that, after all, is how the United States Government was formed. Although I would argue that a transition characterized by compromise would be a stable and seemingly peaceful transition, sometimes compromise is unavailable and thus the transition must be through revolution. This is why an overdependence on the military, while seeming like a benefit, is actually a crutch to the political characteristics of a nation and its citizens, particularly with respect to political culture.

Typically, a revolution is fought and therefore not won without a military presence, however there is a difference between a people’s military and the militaries that are commonly seen in Latin America, who have a strict hierarchical structure and promote within and are rigid in their political views. Instead of this, the military should be developed as a tool of political expression for the common people. Therefore, when the regime change is effective and the people find themselves in charge of the country, they will know first that the military is behind them, and second that the military will relinquish control of the state in favor of a government that will benefit all.