Unpacking pros, cons of military rule
By Morgen Makombo Sikwila
In the simplest words possible, military rule is when the military of a country holds power. A simple way to think of it is the situation in which the army says: “Now we are in charge.” In this configuration, elections cease to matter, the constitution is suspended and the government rules by decree.
Instead of the usual bureaucratic processes, a small group of military officials make the decisions for country.
This phenomenon appears frequent in developing countries, especially during times of upheavals when the military inserts itself to ‘restore order and stability,’ all the while propping up some of its own judicial processes, facilitating limited opportunities for voters to cast ballots and sometimes holding on for years while maintaining a monopoly on power.
Disrespect for human rights and civil liberties can sometimes take centre stage.
In military regime, they enforce laws strictly and implement policies quickly. Or that’s a theory. However, given the inherent centralisation of power, military regimes are especially vulnerable to economic mismanagement and graft.
The leader can start acting above the law, making ‘decisions’ without genuine oversight and then proceeding to engage in corrupt practices.
A key advantage of military rule is the rapidity with which decisions can be made. In civilian governments, decision-making can be painfully slow because it requires endless approvals and adherence to protocols. Military rule is far less revolving, power is concentrated, so the decision can be taken and implemented.
With a hierarchical, disciplined and orderly command structure, military generals could introduce rigorous anti corruption measures without the typical delays and complications.
This isn’t to say that such forms of governments are free from corruption, but that centralised control in military rule could allow for significant reductions in corruption.
Military rule tends to be strict rule, with total control and very little illegal activity is tolerated. If there is a crime committed by anyone, the individual can face severe punishment for that compared to the regular governments procedure.
In military government, the men in leading positions are commonly chosen on the basis of meritocracy, rather than political affiliation and nepotism characterizing the formation of civilian cabinets.
Militaries always have the capacity to take full control of national governments by force, a process in which democratic governments have to not only relinquish power but also their legitimacy as well.
With a more streamlined way of processing things and making decisions, military rule can very well make things stable, even in chaotic situations.
Certainly, an autocracy will be better in natural disaster or economic crisis management due to its vertical structure and fast decision-making. Military governments are not well suited to democratic governance.
However, they are better at mobilizing resources and implementing necessary actions on short notice to mitigate the effects of natural disasters, economic crises or security threats.
One of the biggest issues with military rule in a country is that when such governance is implemented, there are no basic or human rights that are respected. One cannot simply oppose the government also known as the military in such conditions or else, will be locked up and even tortured.
In military regimes, there is no independent judiciary; laws aren’t applied in an even-handed manner to all, and military leaders may not even be subject to the laws. This kind of legal structure actually goes on to create more injustices in society which the majority of the citizens may not like.
Citizens don’t get to vote for their preferred leaders, which means there’s a serious lack of accountability and representation in military governments. This can lead to long periods of non-governmental rule, with public consent continuing only so long as a new coup or regime change is kept at bay.
Notoriously, military governments are prone to economic disasters, as they put defence spending ahead of development. For the military as the governing power, it is going to be the defence budget that is going to be the main priority, which can very well lead to economic decline over time.
Military rule can only produce stability only in the short term. It has been seen that once military rule is put into action, there can be more rivalries in different groups of the country, which ultimately leads to more coups and political instability down the line.
It is somewhat true that military leaders don’t answer to the public, so even democratic armed forces could become powerful without meaningful institutional constraints on the exercise of that power, and therefore vulnerable to abuse.
Without institutions able to hold armed forces accountable to public oversight or democratic control, corruption, human rights abuses and other forms of misconduct can be rampant, without significant barriers.
Development thrives where there is democracy. Democracy thrives where there is rule of law and respect for human rights. Preferred leaders by civilians should be in rule. The military should give defense to the nation more than anything else.
Morgen Makombo Sikwila
Masters in Peace and Governance
BSc Counselling
Diploma in Environmental Health Health
Certificate in Marketing Management
morgensikwilam@gmail.com 0772823282