1. Armed Forces and Democracy
- Author:
- Ali L. Karaosmanoğlu
- Publication Date:
- 06-2011
- Content Type:
- Special Report
- Institution:
- BILGESAM (Wise Men Center for Strategic Studies)
- Abstract:
- After the Cold-War, there have been radical changes in the international system and the international structure has, to a certain extent, come to be relative. However, division of power in the international community and non-centralized legal order still dominate their roles of being the most characteristic features of international relations. Under such an atmosphere, “security” (however much its content has changed) is still the “value” that should be primarily protected by individuals, societies and states and the lack of which is the source of concern. Therefore, communities of today’s world also accept the critical function of the armed forces. Furthermore, it has been much clearer in the post Cold War era that the security of an individual and the society is as important as that of the state’s security. In this era, it has also come to the fore that this security of the individual and the society could not be protected without the maintenance of the rule of law, human rights, freedoms and democracy. Therefore, the security provided by the armed forces does not suffice. Then security provided by the armed forces should be backed by democratic values, human rights freedoms and the rule of law. However, the history has showed that the armed forces, in performing its mission of protection, has from time to time easily violated democratic values, human rights, freedoms and the principle of rule of law. In this sense, for the protection of the democratic values and thus for the maintenance of individual and social security, it seems compulsory for the military forces to adhere to the civil authority within the democratic regime and to be controlled by the civil authority alike. In other words, civil-military relations should be conducted on a democratic ground. The problem in civil-military relations is not particular to Turkey or to the countries whose democracy has not yet developed. It is a general problem that manifests itself in different versions in the liberal democracies of the West. The problem in civil-military relations has been much more apparent, especially in America and England with regards to the Iraq and Afghanistan interventions. It would be of use to mention how the theory of political science refers to the importance and the complexity of this problem. According to Peter D. Feaver,1 one of the pioneering names in this scope, the armed forces totally differs from the other state institutions, highlighting where the problem starts. The armed forces is different, as it can be understood from its name of being “armed.” Its big potential of power cannot be compared to any other institution or even to the civil democratic government. Hence, the civil government’s relations with the armed forces cannot be similar to its relations with any other public institutions, such as its relations with any directorate general. The final word in democratic regimes always belongs to the one who comes to power through elections. However, the armed forces has its own hierarchy, disciplinary rules, rules of promotion and assignment and the discretionary power in this scope. The problem is related to the boundaries of this autonomous field.
- Topic:
- Development, Armed Forces, Democracy, and Civil-Military Relations
- Political Geography:
- Turkey and Middle East