Wednesday, 11 February 2015

HUNTINGTON Samuel Phillips AND JANOWITZ theories of military intervention



INTRODUCTION
Military interventions in politics are very common both in developing democratic or totalitarian regimes. There are various theories about the causes of military interventions; historical missionary, organizational format theory, custodian theory, and socio economic development theory.  This paper aims to answer the question of “What theory is best to explain military intervention in Nigeria and the reasons for the theory.
Samuel Huntington and Morris Janowitz are considered the two premier authors on the theory of civil-military relations.  Other theories have developed either to fill in perceived shortcomings of the original concepts of Huntington and Janowitz or to provide alternatives to the original theories.  Some of these alternative theories include Peter Feaver’s agent theory, Rebecca Schiff’s concordance theory, and Eliot Cohen’s theory of unequal dialogue.  
Since Samuel Huntington and Morris Janowitz first introduced their theories on civil-military relations, many scholars have debated the issue.  Over the years, many alternative theories have been explored.  A study of civil-military relations has been conducted on almost every nation in the world, some more than once. This paper talks about the Samuel Huntington and Morris Janowitz theories of while military intervene in politics,
ABOUT HUNTINGTON AND JANOWITZ
Samuel Phillips Huntington (April 18, 1927 – December 24, 2008) was an influential conservative political scientist from the United States of America whose works covered multiple sub-fields of political science. He gained wider prominence through his Clash of Civilizations (1993, 1996) thesis of a post-Cold War new world order.
Morris Janowitz (October 22, 1919 – November 7, 1988) was an American sociologist and professor who made major contributions to sociological theory, the study of prejudice, urban issues, and patriotism. He was one of the founders of military sociology and made major contributions, along with Samuel P. Huntington, to the establishment of contemporary civil-military relations.


WHAT IS MILITARY INTERVENTION
Military intervention according to Fawole (1994) is defined as the conscious act of displacing and supplanting an existing political order, a government, by soldiers with the objective either of governing or influencing the political affairs of the country in particular direction determined largely by the interventionists themselves. It is directed at the political system of the state or its agents involving the threat or actual use of force to accomplish certain predetermined objectives which may be political, economic, social or even military.

 

Civil-Military Theory

According to Richard Kohn, the requirements for civilian control in a democracy are the rule of law, a stable method for succession, workable practices for electing officials, and a government and governing process accepted as legitimate by elites and by the population as a whole.[i]  There are a number of theories established about civil-military relations.  These theories include, but are not limited to, Samuel Huntington’s theory on subjective versus objective civilian control, Peter Feaver’s agency theory, Rebecca Schiff’s concordance theory, Eliot Cohen’s unequaled dialogue, and Morris Janowitz’s theory of a citizen soldier-based constabulary force.   Specifically this paper will focus on four theorists of civil-military relations, Huntington, Janowitz, Cohen, and Feaver.  These theories move from the idea of what civil-military relations should be to how civil-military relations actually work. Ayam,  (2004)
SAMUEL HUNTINGTON AND PROFESSIONALIZATION
 Samuel Huntington’s pioneering scholarship, The Soldier and the State, served to lay the foundation of civil-military relations theory, determining that the best way to maintain military separation from civilian governments was through an increase of professionalization. Huntington’s theory sought to determine a proper relationship between the military and civil government through the professionalization of the military. Huntington believed that it was professionalization that was the most important element of the civil-military relationship and regarded expertise, responsibility, and corporate consciousness as indicators of this professional nature. If the military were allowed to have a separate, autonomous sphere of influence, Huntington believed that they would remain separate from the civilian government’s power. Huntington supposed an inherent correlation between professionalization and subordination, become increasingly informed and professional about their sphere of power would decrease the likelihood that the military would try to exercise control and influence through the means of the civilian government.  Ayam,(2004)
Founded on varying degrees of military professionalism, Huntington then classified two varying styles of civilian control over military power “objective control” and “subjective control.” While Huntington makes it clear that “objective control” is preferable to “subjective control” the parameters of each are fairly vague. Huntington believes that “objective control” is best form of civilian control because it is possible to “simultaneously maximize military subordination and military fighting power; guarantee the protection of civilian society from external enemies and from the military themselves.”  By increasing the military’s autonomy, “objective control” is the most effective form of civilian control because it weakens the military politically without degrading its ability to defend society because professionalizing the military will cause it to become politically sterile. While this principle seems logical, clear mechanisms for instituting this form of control are not detailed, Huntington simply relies on an assumption that there is an inherent link between voluntary subordination and professionalism.[ii] With little parameters one can only assume that they way to achieve “objective control” would be to carry out any policy which would further increase the autonomy of the military bureaucracy, or professionalizing the institution through the provision of advanced technologies and training mechanisms. 
HUNTINGT ON VIEW ON MILITARY INTERVENTION IN POLITICS
Huntington’s school of thought argues that military interventions are likely to occur in states lacking institutionalized political cultures, which also suffer economic hardship and social division. This school of thought also known as ‘environmentalists’ argue that,  the state’s socio-political and economic environment is responsible for military take over. In other words, coups occur in an unstable society especially the developing countries.
This school postulates that socio-political environment can lead to military intervention as the case of Algeria in 1992 where the military intervened because it feared the outcome of multi-party elections where an Islamic movement was poised to win and form the next government. The military conscious of its personal interest opted to abort the democratic process and take over power itself. (Huntington 1969).
            Similarly, political institutions like political parties, pressure groups, legislature and judiciary etc, are weak and therefore create the platform for the military to intervene. Social divisions especially ethnic and class conflicts in the continent has also led to military intervention in the last two decades. For example, Countries such as: Algeria 1992, Burundi 1996, Central African Republic 2003, the Gambia  1994, Mali 1991, Niger 1996-1999, Nigeria 1993, Lesotho 1991-93, Guinea Bissau 2003, Sao tome and Principe1995, Sierra Leone 1992, 96, and 97 have all witnessed military intervention.
             From the above assertions one can say that, African regimes are vulnerable to crisis because they tend towards personal rule rather than legal-rational structures, consequently as soon as violence becomes the defining mechanism of regime change in Africa, the military then becomes a key player in politics.  Huntington argued that, in a state lacking authority, competing social groups employ means which reflect their peculiar nature and capabilities, the wealthy bribe, student riot, workers strike, mobs demonstrates and military intervention;           therefore, in the absence of strong institutions the military come into power. The military is forced to intervene in the political process in the absence of other social groups with the ability to govern effectively, (Huntington 1969).
HUNTINGTON CUSTODIAN THEORY BEST EXPLAINS MILITARY INTERVENTION IN NIGERIA POLITICS AND REASONS.
What accounts for the difference in the incidence of coups across countries?” my findings strongly support the Huntington theory as having the most significant impact on the incidence of coups in Nigeria politics; Huntington theory state that the military is the custodian of the nation constitution, and, so, as such, it fee.
Huntington asserted that the military would usually be welling to return to the ballacks after a dispute has been settling. Thus, the military only acts as the guardian to check the activities of corrupt civilian administrators and to ensure political stability. Huntington stressed that the military will intervene when civilian government lacks legitimacy due to inadequate electoral and an ineffective executive (Huntington 1969).
               Thus, the praetorian army will tend to replace weak and unstable political regimes. Finer (1969) argued that the most important cause of military intervention is the low or minimal political culture of the society concerned. According to Huntington and Finer, the interpretation of military coups relates to the characteristics of the Nigerian army. Finer, more than Huntington stressed the role that corruption plays in intervention; in Nigeria some members of ineffective civilian leadership have been found to be corrupt and inept and to pursue self seeking ambition. In contemporary society, however, the military is no longer content with enjoying proxy leadership. With a corps of relatively well-educated  and highly-trained manpower and in the context of the prevailing crisis  in Nigerians development, the military may see itself as the rightful heir to state power and as the legitimate recipient of public resources, as Marx foresaw.
            A guardian coup is where the military intervene in order to rescue the state from civilian mismanagement” the men in uniform consider it their duty to replace their incompetent civilian predecessors (Thomson, 2004:134). The military men see themselves as the custodian of the state and its constitution and this clearly is what has been obtained in Nigerian politics which led to the first Military coup in Nigeria, where the military felt the civilian regime was failing the nation and as an alternative and custodian they became involved in Nigerian politics.
MORRIS JANOWITZ AND THE CONSTABULARY FORCE
Morris Janowitz has reviewed the role of changing international relationships on the relationship between the military and civilian government.  In his work, The Professional Soldier, Janowitz looks toward the advent of nuclear weapons and the necessity of the military to change its behavior in relation to technological advances. During the Cold War, the two great powers the United States and the Soviet Union applied security strategies of deterrence with limited actual war. Janowitz states that the lines between peace and war had been blurred in this new military concept, influencing the military to view itself in a new ideal as a constabulary force. He states, “the military establishment becomes a constabulary force when it is continuously prepared to act, committed to the minimum use of force, and seeks viable international relations, rather than victory.”[iii] With this new concept, the military would look toward the image of a police force for inspiration rather than of the warrior. 
According to  Dike, (2003) this new conceptualization has caused the military to become inherently more politicized, necessitating a change to the nature of civilian supremacy. As evidence of this phenomenon, Janowitz notes the centralization of national security within the civilian government, “for example, the creation of the Department of Defense and National Security Council”[iv], with an increased effort to gain access to civilian power. The National Security Council and Department of Defense allowed the military to have more spokes in the civilian government than ever before. These organizations allowed the military bureaucracy to have greater proximity to the most powerful decision-making institutions within the United States government, and effectively increasing their presence in affairs of the White House. While this proximity has not resulted in overarching military exercises of control as it has in other military traditions, the U.S. military can effectively use this influence to “act as a pressure group in the formulation of national security policy” due to an inherent respect for professional specialist. Furthermore, Janowitz notes, “as a pressure group the military is not voluntary association acting on the organs of government; on the contrary, it is an organ of government seeking to develop new techniques for intervening in domestic politics.”  Thus, changing technologies and the changing role of the military has inherently politicized the military establishment, explaining an increased intrusion of the military into the affairs of the civilian government.
While Janowitz’s theory of civil-military relations is institutional like Huntington’s, he comes no closer to defining an alternative theory for how civilians can ensure their control on the institutional level but states that the answer must be a greater amount of civilian oversight in many different levels of military affairs.[v] Janowitz advocates for civilian oversight of the military establishment in order to develop standards for the military’s performance. However, maintains that professionalization is the best means to establish civilian control. He states that with this professionalization, the military would obey in one part because of its “meaningful integration with civilian values” and also because of Huntington’s notion of “self-imposed professional standards.”[vi] Therefore, much of Janowitz’s prescribed solutions to this new problem of civil-military control fall right back into the hands of Huntington’s original concept of professionalism.




POLITICAL DEVELOPMENT THEORY
Political Development Theory has Huntington (1976); Lieuwen (1962); Finer (1975) and Putnam (1967) as some of the major proponents. The underlying argument here is that, where public attachments to civilian institutions are strong and firm, military interventions in politics and civilian governments will be weak. On the contrary, where the public attachment to meaningful political activities and ideologies are weak or non-existent, the military will find credible basis for assuming power (Finer, 1975:21). The basic trust of the theory is that “the propensity for military intervention in government decreases with increasing popular attention to participation in partisan politics” (Putnam, 1967). The net effect of these is weak governance and weak public administrative system, culminating in a lack of development in Africa, especially in the countries under review: Mauritania, Guinea, Niger and Mali. 

THE RELEVANCE OF THE THEORIES TO MILITARY INTERVENTION IN AFRICAN
Analysis have shown that most civilian governments continue to fail to transit from one democratically elected government to another as a result of the numerous violent clashes which have become a major feature of the electoral processes of the countries under review. We shall now closely consider special cases of poor CMR (civil military relations) in the countries under review. 
Mauritania
Mauritania’s history following the end of one-party rule in 1978 was highlighted by five successful coups out of twelve known incidences of coups: 1978, 1980, 1984, 2005, and 2008 (Appendix 1). While the coups of 1978 and 1984 installed military regimes, the 2005 coup was motivated by increasing domestic tension under the rule of Colonel Maaouya Ould Sid’Ahmed Taya (Akinterinwa, 2008:20). This tension stemmed partly from Ould Taya’s limited tolerance for democratization. The coup leaders organized open elections, and a civilian president was elected in 2007. Feelings within the military leadership which indicated that the civilian regime was politically weak, especially in the face of a perceived Islamist and jihadist threat, prompted the coup in August, 2008. The leader of that coup, General Mohamed Ould Abdel Aziz, had been a key participant in the 2005 coup. In 2009, the junta organized Presidential elections. Abdel Aziz ran as a civilian candidate and won. He remains in power till today (Thurston, 2012:6). Here we see the socio-political theory of CMR strongly at play. 
Guinea
Out of fourteen recorded instances of alleged coup plots in Guinea, three of the coups were successful. The coup of 1984 took place at the demise of independence-era leader, President Sekou Toure, and another in December 2008, at the demise of President Lansana Conte, who came to power in the coup of 1984 (Appendix 1). The junta installed in 2008 was led by Captain Moussa Dadis Camara. Camara promised that elections would take place and that he would not stand, but tensions rose as his promises came to appear hollow and his behaviour became erratic. Consequently, in September 2009, soldiers brutally cracked down on an opposition rally in the capital Conakry. Then, in December 2009, one of Camara’s guards shot him in the head. The junta leader missed death by whiskers. He was flown to Morocco and later to Burkina Faso. He was no longer permitted to re-enter Guinea. Power passed to General Sekouba Konate, who oversaw a two-round election in June/November 2010. The elections were marred by violence and allegations of fraud. The winner, long-time opposition leader Alpha Conde, is still the President (Marshall, 2004:4). 
Niger 
In the case of Niger,  out of eight recorded instances of coup plots, four successful coup d’états were  recorded: the 1974 coup that overthrew independence-era President Hamani Diori; a 1996 coup that installed Colonel Ibrahim Mainassara, after several attempts at installing civilian governments; the 1999 assassination of Mainassara by his bodyguards, who then organized civilian elections which was won by President Mamadou Tandja; and the February 2010 coup that ousted Tandja after he amended the constitution and remained in power beyond his original two-term limit (Appendix 1). The 2010 coup led by Colonel Salou Djibo, exemplified continuities with the 1999 coup. Djibo’s junta quickly organized civilian elections. The two-round contest held in January/March 2011, was won by opposition leader and current President Mahamadou Issoufou (Akinterinwa, 2008:20). 


Mali                                                                                                                                          
From the 16th of January 2012, several insurgent groups fought against the Malian government for independence or greater autonomy for Northern Mali, an area known as Azawad. ‘The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad’ (MNLA), an organization fighting to make Azawad an independent homeland for the Tuaregs people, had taken control of the region by 2012.  On the 22nd of  March 2012, President Amadou Toumani Touré was ousted in a coup d'état over his handling of the crisis in his country, a month before presidential election took place in the country.
Mutinous soldiers, under the name ‘National Committee for the Restoration of Democracy and State' (CNRDR), led by Captain Amadou Sanogo, the Chairman of the Committee took control and suspended the constitution of Mali (Associated Press, 2012:8). In a television broadcast, the day after the coup was staged, he announced that the junta had suspended Mali's constitution and taken control of the nation. He also cited Touré's alleged poor handling of the insurgency and the lack of equipment for the Malian Army, among other socio-economic reasons, as justification for the overthrow of government.  As a consequence of the instability following the coup, Mali's three largest Northern cities: Kidal, Gao and Timbuktu, were overrun by the rebels in three consecutive days (Ahmed and Callimachi, 2012). On 5th April 2012, after the capture of Douentza, the MNLA announced that it had accomplished its goals and called off its offensive. The following day, it proclaimed Azawad's independence from Mali (Al Arabiya, 2012).  

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN JANOWITZ AND HUNTINGTON THEORY
Janowitz provides a parallel theory to that of.  Where Huntington maintains that to keep the military professional it should remain outside society, Janowitz believes that the military and society should be integrated to ensure better civil-military relations Thomson, (2004).  This is a more subjective view of civil control, as described by Huntington.  Janowitz’s belief that the blurring of lines between the military and the civilians runs counter to Huntington’s belief that the military should remain separate and autonomous from the civilians in order to maintain its professional integrity.  Both theorists, however, agree that the military must maintain its professionalism.  The difference is in how the professionalism is maintained, either through continued separation of the military and civilians or through integration.  Janowitz’s constabulary force would also negate the need for a distinction between wartime and peacetime interactions.[vii]  The officer in this constabulary force would also have a greater understanding of the civilian government’s desires, therefore diminishing the distinction between a working or shirking attitude.  Thomson (2004)
While these scholars have made significant contributions to the field of civil-military relations, their discoveries show difficulty in their application to civil-military traditions around the world. Like Huntington, Janowitz has little prescription to the best mechanisms, which would allow for increased civilian control and also fail to determine the heart of the relationship between the two institutions on a more regular basis. Although Janowitz takes account of the increasingly political role adopted by the military as the result of changing world order, he continues to rely on the dangerous assumption that subordination inherently follows professionalization.  While this assumption has achieved relative application in the United States, its theory definitely does not hold up in civil-military traditions around the world. Historically, military coups have occurred even with the existence of professional militaries. This makes it imperative to determine new mechanisms for control and the nuances within the civil-military relationship. 
  RECCOMMENDATIONS
Recognizing civil-military relations as one of the most important factors of democratic consolidation in the most recent wave of democratization helps policymakers to identify necessary aspects of focus in order to achieve their consolidation goals. Only by knowing the largest obstacles for democratization will a country be able to determine which reforms it needs to focus on implementing and warning signs for weak governmental policies, etc. This paper has identified three possible explanations for non-intervention: constitutional separation, punishment and national identity. These explanations offer three different areas that consolidating countries may look toward in their decisions about what constitutional reforms are necessary. While all three variables may not apply to another country’s civil-military relationship, it is likely that at least one explanation can lend valuable insights into factors for civil military separation
CONCLUSION
A military is an organization authorized by its greater society to use lethal force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or perceived threats. The military may have additional functions of use to its greater society, such as advancing a political agenda and the military intervene in politics because its sees itself as the custodian of the constitution.
REFERENCES
Ayam, J. (2004) Introduction to Politics; Ogun: Covenant University Press.
Al Arabiya, (2012). "Tuareg Rebels Declare the Independence of Azawad, North of Mali”. Al Arabiya. 6 April 2012. Retrieved from Wikipedia on 6th  April, 2012.
Akinterinwa, B. A. (2008). Africa and the Future of Sanctity of Colonial Frontiers; This Day News Paper. p. 20.
Dike, R. A (2003) Public management and Sustainable Development in Nigeria:      
           (Military and Bureaucracy Relationship); England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.
Fawole W.A. (1994). The Military and the future of Democracy in Africa, Benin City:   Hima & Hima Ltd.
Finer, S.E. (1988). The Man on Horseback, (2nd Edition), Bouldr, CO: Westview Press.
Huntington, S. P. (1969). "Reforming Civil Military Relations", Journal of          Democracy,October 1995, (9-17).
Lieuwen, E. (1962). “Militarism and Politics in Latin America” In Jonson, J. (ed) The Role of the Military in Under Developed Countries. New Jersey: Princeton University Press. p. 132.

Putnam, D. (1967). Toward Explaining Military Intervention in Latin-American Politics.             World politics. 20:1 (pp.83-110).
Thomson, A. (2004) An Introduction to African Politics (2ndedt); New York:    Routledge Taylon and Francis Group.
Fawole W.A. (1994). The Military and the future of Democracy in Africa, Benin City:   Hima & Hima Ltd.





[iii] Morris Janowitz, The Professional Soldier, a Social and Political Portrait, Glencoe: Free Press, 1960), 418.



[vii] Janowitz, 419.  

No comments:

Post a Comment