The Correlation of Power – Militaries and Citizens
There appears to be a consensus that the foundations of the present forms of democracy can be attributed to the use of primarily military authoritarian regimes solving the historically authoritarian forms of government (i.e. aristocracy and oligarchy). The debate is more apparent in the allocation of power in the twentieth century to achieve the status of democracy, and through the specific forms of coups that achieved their subsequent authoritarianism in Latin America.
Collier discusses the possible shifts in the early part of the century that resulted from the new age of industrialization and ensuing inequality. He cited a significant amount of reasoning by an Argentine political scientist, Guillermo O’Donnell, to explain how technocrats used coups and preceding bureaucratic authoritarianism as a way for elites to solve the previous forms of limited rule by a select few — usually oligarchy. It is possible that these technocrats utilized their power to ensure coups and selective authoritarianism as a way to gain more power, but it remains unclear as to why this shift from one form of authoritarianism to another occurred. In addition to this shift, existed a brief populist period during which the coup may have materialized. This begs the question — did the technocrats take advantage of the brief populism and industrialization at the turn of the century to create their own regime? This is the most likely situation, however the international economic instability in the early 1930s may have also paved the way for a significant government overhaul. Either way, it is apparent that the social and economic elite were able to use their power and wealth to create bureaucratic authoritarianism at a time when populism was young and unstable.
Smith explains the foundations of democracy by ascribing the military regimes in the latter half of the twentieth century as a way for civilians to actually retain power, instead of forgoing it to the socio-economic elite. He describes the traditional military juntas as solutions to the previous bureaucratic authoritarianism and oligarchies — all with the ultimate goal of achieving democracy. As the military can provide a significant amount of power to civilians, it makes sense that it’s foundations would be in achieving an ultimate goal of democracy. The military coups during the Cold War were founded on the belief in destroying communism across Latin America, so while these temporary military regimes solved their primary issues, they were able to transfer power to elected officials by the end of the century. Since these regimes were short in tenure, it makes even more sense that they resulted in democracy once the primary solutions were resolved and power had to be transferred to those who would continue the military’s efforts.
Smith also continued his discussion to present day by stating that with the new era of democracy, militaries may be weaker than in the previous authoritarian regimes. This may contradict his previous conclusion that militaries are primarily ruled by the citizens, and even be more in line with Collier’s discussions of bureaucratic authoritarianism as a way for the elite to rule. The militaries are in fact weakened with the new governments that are more focused on it’s civilians than ever before. The ultimate question prevails — does the military give citizens power or take it away? In either case, the military certainly acts differently under different regimes, and therein may be the solution to this question. Since Collier discussed bureaucratic authoritarianism, it may be possible that the military is weakened and therefore the citizens’ power is weakened. Smith discussed more traditional military juntas, and therefore the argument that military power and citizen power are linked would make sense, as the citizens’ power grew with the heightened military regimes discussed. Since democracy reigns presently, and the military power has weakened with the emergence of elected officials, the citizens’ power has just been allocated differently, and still holds. In the end, there may not be a direct correlation between military and citizen power, as there are instances of all cases where military and citizen power are not related, and therefore each power cannot be described as conditional. Ultimately, the established debate denotes that there are countless conclusions to be made given the varying authoritarian regimes.
The military’s efforts in preventing the spread of communism extended past conflict. By using repressive tactics, propaganda, education, etc. the military was able to squash any sort of communist influence in the Cold War. In doing so, numerous human rights abuses occurred at the hands of the military and the state. I liked your point about possible linkages between civilians and the military because exploring the relationships between civil society and the military help foreshadow the nature of the relationship in the future. With civilian leaders emerging, the legitimacy of military leaders was called into question. However, without respect for civilian institutions and civilian leaders, civilian government is unlikely to flourish. Taking away legitimacy from the military was both difficult and an unpredictable process. The military’s ability to give power rather than take it away relies on whether the military is linked with the elites or the proletariat. When the military finds itself acting on behalf of the citizenry, it allows civilians to have some power in deciding what the government should be. While that power is extremely limited compared to a structure like electoral democracy, the citizenry still receives somewhat of a say in domestic affairs. Exclusionary regimes took power away from civilians in order to further their own goals or the goals of the technocrats/elites. During coups, the military often aspired to fix a certain issue. While the longterm goals included establishing a stable democratic government, coups were seemingly problem-solving mechanisms. I think you touched on a lot of important points from the readings, I enjoyed your post.
The correlation between military and citizen power is not clear. Different military authoritarian regimes in the twentieth century produced different power relations with citizens. However, it is evident that authoritarian reigns contributed solutions to historically autocractic forms of government. For example, I agree that aristocrats and oligarchs limited power to the select few. In order to eliminate the bureaucratic forms of government, technocrats had to use coups and preceding authoritarianism. Although it is unclear why there were shifts from one form of authoritarian government to another, I would suggest that military regimes gradually transferred power to citizens. However, it is also important to note that most of the shifts in authoritarianism in the early twentieth century were accompanied by an increase in populism and industrialization. In addition, the period was characterized by international economic instability. Although technocrats might have taken advantage of populism, I agree that there is a possibility that economic uncertainties might have paved way for government changes.
I also agree that military authoritarian regimes were the foundations of democracy regardless of the dynamics that took place in the twentieth century. I think Smith provides a more convincing argument in relation to the transfer of power from the military dominations to citizens. As indicated by military juntas in Latin America, the regimes were a means through which civilians could actually retain power. Unlike oligarchs that were dominated by few individuals, military regimes were diversified. Therefore, their objective was to destroy the previous authoritarian powers and oligarchs to bestow power on elected officials. I also admit that the era of democracy has weakened militaries because of different allocation of civilian power. Citizens’ power has been transferred to elected officials who keep control over the military.