Saturday, June 20, 2020

Military Dictatorships


Military interventions, by enlarge are failed exercisers, in a situation where a failed state or in a region (Africa in particular) with ill-defined land borders with different warring parties claiming for the land.

Currently China is exploiting the Indian inconsistency in South East Asia.

It is the silk road hegemony!

My first experience of military dictatorship was in UK when Idi Amin expelled the Asians from Ethiopia.

Then there was Rwanda (1975) and currently Sudan enmeshed with military and political turmoil.

Our political monks want us to be pushed in that direction in the name of Buddhism, is an irony by itself.

I happened to work with one of those Asian Guys Dr. Javani with whom I had a working relationship.

I did not work for him but did my elective attachment for six weeks. 

I believed the G.M.C (he signed in, no Asians) wanted me out of UK on the first go, but I survived!

Military dictatorships


From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
A military dictatorship is a dictatorship in which the military exerts complete or substantial control over political authority, and the dictator is often a high-ranked military officer.
The reverse situation is to have civilian control of the military.
Occasionally, military dictatorship is called khakistocracy.
The term is a portmanteau word combining kakistocracy with khaki, the tan-green camouflage colour used in most modern army uniforms.

Creation and evolution

Most military dictatorships are formed after a coup d'état has overthrown the previous government. 

There have been cases, however, where the civilian government has been formally maintained but the military exercises de facto control—the civilian government is either bypassed or forced to comply with the military's wishes.

For example, from 1916 until the end of World War I, the German Empire was governed as an effective military dictatorship, because its leading generals had gained such a level of control over Kaiser Wilhelm II that the Chancellor and other civilian ministers effectively served at their pleasure. Alternatively, the Empire of Japan after 1931 never in any formal way drastically altered the constitutional structure of its government, but from that point, it is typically seen as a military dictatorship, since the Army and Navy had the effective legal right to veto the formation of undesirable governments (and also to compel the resignation of an existing government that had lost their favor), and since key cabinet posts traditionally held by civilians (especially the Premiership) were instead filled by active flag officers.
Military dictatorships may gradually restore significant components of civilian government while the senior military commander still maintains executive political power. 
In Pakistan, ruling Generals Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq (1977–1988) and Pervez Musharraf (1999–2008) have held referendums to elect themselves President of Pakistan for additional terms forbidden by the constitution.

Justification

In the past, military juntas have justified their rule as a way of bringing political stability for the nation or rescuing it from the threat of "dangerous ideologies". 

For example, the threat of communism, socialism, and Islamism was often used. 
(Currently advocated by misguided Buddhist Monks in Ceylon)

Military regimes tend to portray themselves as non-partisan, as a "neutral" party that can provide interim leadership in times of turmoil, and also tend to portray civilian politicians as corrupt and ineffective. 

One of the almost universal characteristics of a military government is the institution of martial law or a permanent state of emergency.

Comparison with other forms of authoritarianism

Military dictatorships are not the only form of authoritarianism or even, especially in the twenty-first century, the most common one.

Comparison with monarchies

A military dictatorship is distinct from an absolute monarchy, although there are some similarities, especially concerning how the two are (or historically have been) established. 
Virtually all absolute monarchs (and even most constitutional monarchs) are commanders-in-chief of their nations' militaries, wear military uniforms at least on a ceremonial basis and hold military ranks and/or titles. 
Also, senior members of royal families, especially if they are male and/or heirs apparent or presumptive, are expected to perform military service prior to ascending the throne. 
Moreover, almost all monarchies (both current and defunct) established themselves over the past centuries and millennia by force of arms. A key difference between a monarchy and a military dictatorship is that once they are established and recognized by their subjects (a process that has often taken many generations) a monarchy typically establishes some form of hereditary succession to legitimately transfer power from generation to generation, and while there historically have been many cases of disputed claims to a throne, attempting to seize power through sheer force of arms without some sort of credible hereditary claim is usually regarded as illegitimate and/or illegal by monarchists. 
In constitutional monarchies the monarch is usually the commander-in-chief and is often formally the highest-ranking military officer but in practice is expected to defer to the advice of civilian ministers, especially when appointing flag officers who will exercise actual operational command, thus maintaining civilian control of the military.
 
On the other hand, modern military dictatorships typically eschew hereditary succession with long-lasting juntas often emphasizing the traditional methods of promotion within the officer ranks as the eventual path to civil power. Military dictatorships which have attempted to establish themselves as monarchies or otherwise implement hereditary succession, whether or not by attempting to establish themselves as monarchies, have often collapsed very quickly.  
In one example, Oliver Cromwell after deposing and executing King Charles I of England refused all offers to take the English Crown, but nevertheless attempted to have power transferred after his death to his son Richard Cromwell; however, the younger Cromwell lacked the respect or support of the English military establishment, and was thus quickly forced to relinquish power. 
In another, a few years after staging a coup and establishing himself as the French First Republic's dictator, Napoleon Bonaparte crowned himself French Emperor.  
Although he subsequently married a Habsburg princess and sired an heir to his newly-established throne, Napoleon's claim to power was never fully accepted by French royalists who supported the deposed House of Bourbon, nor by other European monarchies. 
Eventually, Napoleon's armies were defeated and he was forced to abdicate and go into exile. Although Napoleon's nephew eventually re-established the Bonapartist monarchy for a time, his seizure of power might be better described in the context of a civilian dictatorship as described in the next section.

Comparison with civilian dictatorship

A military dictatorship is also different from civilian dictatorship for a number of reasons: their motivations for seizing power, the institutions through which they organize their rule and the ways in which they leave power. Often viewing itself as saving the nation from the corrupt or myopic civilian politicians, a military dictatorship justifies its position as "neutral" arbiters on the basis of their membership within the armed forces, which in many countries are nominally expected to be apolitical institutions.

For example, many juntas adopt titles along the lines of "Committee of National Restoration", or "National Liberation Committee". Military leaders often rule as a junta, selecting one of themselves as a head.

Current cases


Country Past government Date adopted Event
 Sudan Federal dominant-party presidential republic April 11, 2019 2019 Sudanese coup d'état

Past cases


Africa


Aman Mikael Andom and Atnafu Abate, leaders of the Ethiopian military junta

  1. Algeria (1965–1976; 1992–1994; 2019)
  2. Benin (1963–1964; 1965–1968; 1969–1970; 1972–1975)
  3. Burkina Faso (1966–1980; 1980-1982; 1982-1983; 1983-1987; 1987-2014)
  4. Burundi (1966–1974; 1976–1979; 1987–1992)
  5. Central African Republic (1966–1979; 1981–1986; 2003–2005; 2013–2014)
  6. Chad (1975–1979; 1982–1990)
  7. Ciskei (1990–1994)
  8. Comoros (1999–2002)
  9. Democratic Republic of the Congo (1965–1997)
  10. Republic of the Congo (1968–1969; 1977–1979)
  11. Côte d'Ivoire (1999–2000)
  12. Egypt (1953–1956; 2011–2012; 2013-2015)
  13. Equatorial Guinea (1979–1992)
  14. Ethiopia (1974–1987)


  1. Zairean President Mobutu Sese Seko
  2. The Gambia (1994–1996)
  3. Ghana (1966–1969; 1972–1975; 1975–1979; 1981–1993)
  4. Guinea (1984–1990; 2008–2010)
  5. Guinea-Bissau (1980–1984; 1999; 2003; April 12, 2012 – May 11, 2012)
  6. Lesotho (1986–1993, 2014)
  7. Liberia (1980–1986, 1990–1997, 2003–2006)
  8. Libya (1969–2011)
  9. Madagascar (1972–1976)
  10. Mali (1968–1992; Mengistu Haile Mariam)
  11. Mauritania (1978–1979; 1979–1992; 2005–2007; 2008–2009)
  12. Niger (1974–1989; 1996; 1999; 2010–2011)
  13. Nigeria (1966; 1966–1975; 1975–1976; 1976-1979; 1983–1985; 1985–1993; 1993–1998; 1998–1999)
  14. Rwanda (1973–1975)
  15. São Tomé and Príncipe (1995; 2003)
  16. Sierra Leone (1967–1968; 1992–1996; 1997–1998)
  17. Somalia (1969–1976; 1980–1991)
  18. Sudan (1958–1964; 1969–1971; 1985–1986; 1989–1993; 2019–present)
  19. Togo (1967–1979)
  20. Transkei (1987–1994)
  21. Tunisia (1987–2011)
  22. Uganda (1971–1979; 1985–1986)
  23. Venda (1990–1994)
  24. Zimbabwe (2017–2018)

Americas


Augusto Pinochet, who ruled Chile from 1973 to 1990.

  1. Argentina (1835-1852;1930–1932; 1943–1946; 1955–1958; 1966–1973; 1976–1983)
  2. Bolivia (1839–1843; 1848; 1857–1861; 1861; 1864–1871; 1876–1879; 1899; 1920–1921; 1930–1931; 1936–1940; 1943–1946; 1951–1952; 1964–1969; 1969–1979; 1980–1982)
  3. Brazil (1889–1894; 1930; 1964–1985)
  4. Chile (1924–1925; 1925; 1927–1931; 1932; 1973–1990)
  5. Colombia (1854; 1953–1958)
  6. Costa Rica (1868–1870; 1876–1882; 1917–1919)
  7. Cuba (1933; 1952–1959)
  8. Dominican Republic (1899; 1930–1961; 1963–1966)
  9. Ecuador (1876–1883; 1935–1938; 1947; 1963–1966; 1972–1979; 2000)
  10. El Salvador (1885–1911; 1931–1982)
  11. Guatemala (1931–1944; 1944–1945; 1954–1957; 1957–1966; 1970–1986)
  12. Grenada (1983)
  13. Haiti (1950–1956; 1956–1957; 1986–1990; 1991–1994)
  14. Honduras (1933–1949; 1956–1957; 1963–1971; 1972–1982; 2009–2010)
  15. Mexico (1835–1846; 1876–1880; 1884–1911; 1913–1914)
  16. Nicaragua (1937–1979)
  17. Panama (1903–1904; 1968–1989)
  18. Paraguay (1940–1948; 1954–1989)
  19. Peru (1842–1844; 1865–1867; 1872; 1879–1881; 1914–1915; 1930–1939; 1948–1956; 1962–1963; 1968–1980; 1992–2000)
  20. Suriname (1980–1991)
  21. Uruguay (1865–1868; 1876–1879; 1933–1938; 1973–1985)
  22. Venezuela (1858–1859; 1859–1861; 1861–1863; 1908–1935; 1948–1958)

Asia



Thailand's Prime Minister Prayut Chan-o-cha in 2014

Chinese Nationalist leader Chiang Kai-shek in 1940

  1. Afghanistan (1978–1986)
  2. Bangladesh (1975–1981; 1982–1990)
  3. Brunei (1962)
  4. Burma (Myanmar) (1962–1988; 1988–2011)
  5. Khmer Republic (1970–1975)
  6. Indonesia (1967–1998)
  7. Iran (1953–1957; 1978–1979)
  8. Iraq (1933–1935; 1936; 1937–1938; 1941; 1949–1950; 1952–1953; 1958–1963; 1963-1968 1968–1979)
  9. Japan (1192–1867[5]; 1931–1945)
  10. South Korea (1170–1270; 1961–1963; 1980)
  11. Kingdom of Laos (1959–1960; 1964)
  12. Lebanon (1988-1990)
  13. Maldives (1988–1989)
  14. Pakistan (1958–1969; 1969–1971; 1977–1988; 1999–2008)
  15. Philippines (1898, 1972–1981)
  16. Syria (1949; 1951–1954; 1961–1972)
  17. Republic of China (Taiwan) (1949–1987)
  18. Thailand (1933; 1947–1957; 1959–1963; 1963–1973; 1977–1979; 2006–2008; 2014–2019)
  19. South Vietnam (1963–1967)
  20. North Yemen (1962–1967; 1974–1977; 1977–1978; 1978; 1978–1982)

Europe


Spanish leader Francisco Franco in 1975

  1. Bulgaria (1923–1926; 1934–1935; 1944–1946)
  2. Cyprus (1974)
  3. United Kingdom (1653–1659)
  4. France (1804–1814; 1852–1870; 1870–1871)
  5. Georgia (1992)
  6. German Empire (1916–1918; 1945)
  7. Greece (1925–1926; 1936–1941; 1967–1974)
  8. Poland (1926–1935, and after his death to 1939; 1981–1983)
  9. Portugal (1926–1933)
  10. Romania (1941–1944)
  11. Russia (1918–1920, 1991)
  12.   an Marino (1957)
  13. Spain (1923–1930; 1936–1975)
  14. Turkey (1913–1918; 1921–1927; 1960–1961; 1980–1983)
  15. Ukraine (1918)

Oceania


  1. Fiji (1987–1999; 2006–2014)

References


    Dave Gilson (2003-02-02). "Freed from a prison of thought in Nigeria". SFGate. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

    Ikhenemho Okomilo (2005-06-10). "Another October, More Khakistocracy". Nigerians in America. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

    temporal (2007-08-07). "Khakistocracy: Military-Industrial-Feudal Complex in Pakistan". Desicritics. Archived from the original on 2010-11-21. Retrieved 2007-12-15.

    Cheibub, José Antonio; Jennifer Gandhi; James Raymond Vreeland (April 1, 2010). "Democracy and dictatorship revisited". Public Choice. 143 (1–2): 67–101. doi:10.1007/s11127-009-9491-2. ISSN 0048-5829.

    "Shogunate". britannica.com. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc. Retrieved June 13, 2020. The shogunate was the hereditary military dictatorship of Japan (1192–1867).



Leave no room for the military to thirst after political power Uphold the principle of an apolitical military

Reproduction

Leave no room for the military to thirst after political power


Uphold the principle of an apolitical military




by Kumar David

General Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff is America’s highest serving military officer. He made a mistake when he appeared in a photo-op with Donald Trump, following forceful dispersal of peaceful protesters outside the White House on 1 June. He apologized, admitted it was a mistake and said "my presence in that environment created a perception that the military is involved in domestic politics". What is more crucial for Lanka’s Presidents, Prime Ministers and military brass to digest is what Gen. Milley said next: 
"We must hold dear the principle of an apolitical military which is deeply rooted in the very essence of our republic".

Several former generals have spoken out against Trump’s partisan approach to a human rights issue - equality for black Americans. His first Defence Secretary, retired Gen. James Mattis, said he never dreamed that troops would be ordered to violate the constitutional rights of their fellow citizens. However, it is this declaration from Gen. Milley, the current top serving officer, that is stunning; it is a public rebuke of the President.

Fast forward to the role of the military in Gotabhaya’s Administration. So many generals, admirals, inspector-generals, retired and serving, piles of kaki and bristling medals shine around, about, within, between and adjacent to his person. They jostle for positions and crave for Ministry Secretary-ships and Chairmanship of Corporations. Task Forces are so over-populated with generals that they trip over each other’s regalia. True it is still not time to call this Administration a military junta but that for sure is not for a scarcity of soldierly personages in the squad. The fundamental distinction between the culture and the traditions of the top echelons of America’s military and our own is that the former boldly tell the President: ‘We hold dear the fundamental principle of an apolitical military, an ethos deeply rooted in the essence of our republic’. 

Can we say this of Lanka’s military? 

Only a careless analyst will stake his intellectual reputation on such an assertion!

Though the regime has used coronavirus as a smokescreen to strengthen its stranglehold on society it has still not declared itself a ruling junta or suspended the constitution. Gota and poropaya are confident of winning the elections and have outflanked both flavours of the UNP and rendered them impotent. The SLFP is a miserable rump and crackpot Sira may lose his seat in Polonnaruwa – good riddance. The Tamils and the TNA are exhausted and have given up the fight. The ghost of Tamil polity can do no more after the LTTE pranced with the devil and the army buried thousands. The TNA and Sumanthiran have offered to boot-lick the putative dictatorship if humble pleas are entertained till 5 August after which the lick will end. Shades of GGP, but at least the old rogue got a Cabinet post in lieu of 30 pieces of silver. MAS, Sambanthan and Mave come cheap; no such offers will materialist without the monks’ blessings and fat hopes of that! Lead counsel MAS bowed his head in sheepish humility when the Court kicked him resoundingly on his soft posterior; I guess he didn’t want to displease the President. 
The Muslims cower in fear with no capacity to protect themselves from President, military or the disdain of a most Sinhala people.

To come back to my theme, ours is a military that is not prepared to tell the President "We want no part of anything that smacks of politics; we want no part of bossing around with public health, archeology, food distribution, intimidating minorities, collecting corporate and state sinecures, or accruing glowing medals on a burnished uniform for carrying your political spittoon". 

If the military leaves room to be sucked into politics it must take the blame – another share of the blame must be assigned to their overlord and his ilk.

The graver danger is long-term. 
Imagine that Gota departs for some presently unfathomable reason. 
What after that? 

The military having tasted power will continue to seek successors who ensure a military-aligned state to which their appetites are now being honed. 

Imran Khan is a case in point; his rise and continued stay in power is partly a gift from the military. 

Participation, the overbearing involvement in power of military brass is a dangerous development that cannot be reversed merely by political actors even as brave and distinguished as Imran. This is a task that will one day need the direct intervention of the people. That is the real as yet unaccomplished lesson of Pakistan.

A piece called "Wounded Democracy" Pradeep Peiris et. al in the Daily Mirror of 16 June quote a CPA survey which shows that over 90% of Sinhalese consistently "trust the military" since 2011; while 2018 parliament and political parties score a miserable 16 to 17%. 
This is a consequence of the Sinhalese victory in the Civil War. 
It was the same in Serbia despite genocide in Srebrenica. 

In Iraq Saddam’s atrocities against Shias and Kurds earned him the loyalty of the majority Sunnis, and everywhere the way to the affections of a race is to massacre an adjacent race or faith. 

Love of the military is deeply embedded in the Sinhala psyche because it won the war and Gota is playing from a strong hand when he bids for a grand-slam for a military dominated regime.

Therefore, there is an unavoidable contradiction in championing democracy. 
It is the people themselves who make a mockery of democracy. 

The grotesque Mervyn de Silva polled 150,000 votes in Gampaha in 2012, ladies of easy virtue outpoll proven, uncorrupted politicians and 90% of Lanka’s parliamentarians have not passed the O-Level
Such MPs, the corrupt, drug dealers and thugs win most elections. This is largely due not to vote buying, but is the outcome of a fairly free franchise. The incongruity to which there is no easy answer is what then are we attempting to shield when advocating democracy? The question is as old as democracy itself! 
The contrarian exclamations with which one throws up one’s hands in horror are: "We must preserve democracy!" 

"The masses are asses!"

The riposte to this charge is intellectually flabby but at the same time empirically impregnable. "No better form of government has been invented"! One and all call themselves republics (Latin res publica, a public affair) rule by the people, not excepting the Republic of Singapore and the People’s Republic of China. Madam Elizabeth holds titular rank in a place where her ancestors since 1648 (or at least 1688) are ceaselessly reminded that Parliament is supreme. 

Can you believe it, even an ugly tyranny like Egypt feels obliged to use the fictional name Arab Republic of Egypt?

The masses may be asses but a dangerous and profoundly false subtext is slipped in. "Since the masses are asses nothing could be better than the military taking power; great progress will flow; great achievements can be made". 
I impress on readers the frequency and duration of the cancer once it takes root. 
What progress? 
What achievements? Show me one from each box – I challenge you!