Can Generals
Yield to Democrats?
It is a matter of debate
as to whether military dictators can yield to
democracy. There are those who argue that all
dictatorships are military dictatorships because
they ultimately rest on the rule of the gun.
But that is not a deep enough analysis.
First, all governments, whether democratic or
otherwise, ultimately rest on the rule of the
gun. All governments reserve the right to use
deadly force against their citizens if they
feel it is necessary. This applies in criminal
matters where the state can execute spies or
murderers, and it extends to civil disorder
and insurrection. What exactly are 500,000 Indian
soldiers doing in Kashmir? Or the army of Sri
Lanka? The greatest bloodshed in US history
took place when President Lincoln unleashed
the full power of the Union Army against the
rebellious southern states in the Civil War.
Second, among autocracies there is a big difference
between those in which ultimate power and decision
making is directly in the hands of the military,
and those states where it is in civilian hands
and in which the military is just one of many
tools of state power. The first group tends
to be military dictatorships, the second are
police states. The second group tends to be
either ideologically run by entrenched and extremist
political parties (fascist, Baathist, communist,
mullahs etc), or monarchies (Saudis, Morocco,
Nepal, Shah's Iran etc.). This second group,
particularly the ideological dictators, don't
rely much on the military, which they often
don't trust, but instead tend to build powerful
secret police apparatus. Military dictators
don't usually build a separate secret police
as they don't want the competition to the uniformed
services. It is interesting to note that Pakistan's
only brush with a secret police was Zulfikar
Ali Bhutto’s FSF (Federal Security Force).
The military rulers never built such things.
The Nazis ruled through the Gestapo, not the
army. Stalin ruled through the KGB, and would
routinely purge the military and execute generals
on trumped up charges.
Third, military dictators yield more easily
to democracy than the other groups. Why is that?
Because they have a place to go when they give
up power. They keep the gold braid, the ranks,
and the status, and just go back to their barracks.
When mullahs or communists or Baathists yield
power they give up everything. In addition,
the secret police apparatus, unlike the military,
has no legitimate role in a democracy, so their
vested interest in perpetuating the dictatorship
is much more intense than that of military dictators.
Finally, military dictators must still maintain
the confidence of the population on at least
some level. The government must be seen as legitimate
by at least a significant portion of society.
For military rulers this legitimacy usually
rests on a foundation of competent and effective
governance and a perception that they are patriots
acting in national interest. When the military
loses that perception, it usually gives up power.
This explains Ayub Khan’s decision to
allow elections in 1970, and also the decision
of the Argentine military to give up power in
the wake of defeat after the Falklands war.
For the ideological dictators (communist or
Baathist or Islamic), their legitimacy rests
on their ideology, which is almost impossible
to discredit, as they have warped society to
accept their interpretation of what is desirable.
That is why they tend to much more tightly control
thought and opinion than do typical military
dictators, who tend to be generally conservative
in their outlook but not possessed by a strong
ideology other than nationalism.
I would conclude that of all the dictatorships
out there, military dictators are the easiest
to transform into democracy. For Pakistanis
who wish to see real democracy take root, that
should offer some encouragement. Comments can
reach me at Nali@socal.rr.com.
