Wednesday, June 24, 2020

Corona Reality and Covid Philosophy


Corona Reality and Covid Philosophy

Corona reality is that the “ The God is not great” but the Tiny RNA polymerase is greater than the mankind’s capacity to withstand the mother nature’s secrets, which in this world of reality is about 4 billion years and not the stated 2700 years or less of Bible history of concocted nonsense!

I wanted to start this piece “That the Corona, the elder brother went in search of Reality and the younger brother Covid, went in search of Philosophy and neither met afterwards.

But I must say in spite of not knowing the reality did not stop philosophers from asking the right question at the right time.

The point I am driving at is very simple.

Spanish flu was endemic at the time of William James.

Millions died in the pandemic and that had probably made William James to revise his religious beliefs and become a philosopher of note.

The travesty is that hundred years had passed mankind's way and another virus of more virulent and potent has come to surface and man has neither made giant strides in philosophy nor religion.

I reserve my  opinion on science more so NOW not knowing the logics of dark matter and dark energy expanding the universe.

One of them was William James and he was deliberately stopped by the Church hierarchy, be that it may be Pope or Bishops with power struggle within the institution.

His book in 1902 was not allowed in academic institutions (mostly the Church and all the universities including American are vested with Gods, even the current President Trump has vouched to protect God if not institutions of Science) and after 100 years that book is in print and I bought a copy.

He studied medicine and later slanted his efforts on psychology.

I believe he had read Buddhism in some sense and described the mind as a stream that flows (river analogy) but stopped short of expanding into Abhidhamma.

His words like hysterical, pathological and delusional propensities of Bible readers and subsequent editors of Bible and Quran are all psychological connotations that the Church nor the Mullahs did not understand due to dogmatism of that age.

The coronavirus bare the impotency of the derived gods of many kinds including Buddhism and Hindu traditions.

My contribution here is that the aliens who visited here 5000 years or so ago for experiments on us (with a novel virus which the China had secretly copied from a sample inadvertently left at a Pyramid of Egypt -GIZA) did not see that Chinese are better than Japaneses in pirating Intellectual properties of any country.
I think Chinese are currently investigating on the virus that Chandana Jayaratne (not Dilith Jayaweera who has the sole property of current Ceylon News) claims and believes that came from space and in the possession of Colombo University’s archived leaves of Ceylonese history documents, which are older than our Universe.
By the way, I am not happy with the 5% or less of the physical world but the 95% of the dark matter and dark energy.

The ever expanding universe baffles me.

The multi-verses and alternative realities of physics beyond the reach of our physics or "New Science" is yet to materialize.

If it is not within our reality but will it be within the scope of philosophical conundrum?

My mind ponders and it is the biggest mysterious power we all have. 

Do not leave any dogmatism to rein within.

I call it the open mind.

Tuesday, June 23, 2020

Sri Lankan runner's 'victory' in defeat! June 22, 2020, 8:07 pm

The runner was a senior in my village school run by the Church.

Mr. Tommy Arther who was our coach used to say.

"What matters is participation not winning".

Karu took the advice to the extreme by taking an extra lap at Tokyo! 

I only stuck to 100 meters (yards to be precise) where I was successful in the school and later in the University. 

I was my own coach! 

Reproduction

Sri Lankan runner's 'victory' in defeat!



Sunny Island by Ruhunu Puthra

In the year 1964, the Olympic Games were held in Japan. We were Ceylonese back then.

The best long distance runner of Sri Lanka at the time, R.J. Karunananda ran in the 10,000 metres event (400 meters x 25 laps). Twenty nine athletes from 17 nations participated in the event.

He found that with four more laps for him to run, William Mills of the United States had already romped home. Even after the others had finished running an undaunted Karu, proceeded to run the remaining four laps, with rare courage and firm determination, as a lone runner.

When he ran his first lap, some spectators jeered and at the 2nd lap, the crowd fell silent. Then there was applause, followed by massive cheering. The whole stadium was reverberating with the chant 'Karu Ceylon! Karu Ceylon!'

Finally, he finished the race amidst tumultuous cheering and a standing ovation from 60,000 spectators. On hearing it, the Duke of Edinburgh, who was the chief guest, came out to congratulate 'the most spirited loser' of the Olympic Games.

Soon after the race, he was interviewed by the press. Karu told the reporters "The Olympic spirit is not to win but to take part. So I came here, I took part in the 10,000 metre event and completed my rounds."

He was acclaimed as a hero by the Japanese media. Even though he did not win any medal, he won the hearts of many admirers all over the world and was the true winner of the people.

One would have thought that it was the end of the heroic story. It was not to be. The Japanese Government in its wisdom thought otherwise. His story was made into a chapter in a text book, accompanied by his photograph, as a life lesson in determination, integrity, courage, self-confidence and persistence, for the children.

Karu received a warm welcome when he returned to Sri Lanka.

Born on May 21, 1936, Karu was a soldier in the Sri Lanka Army. He continued to serve his motherland as a dedicated soldier when in 1975, he 'drowned' in the Namal Oya Tank.

Ranatunga J. Karunananda is an unsung Olympic hero of Sri Lanka.

WHO Announces Biggest Single Day Rise in COVID-19 Cases Globally


 Reproduction

WHO Announces Biggest Single Day Rise in COVID-19 Cases Globally


By Kashmira Gander

The World Health Organization has reported the biggest increase in coronavirus cases in a single day, with the Americas bearing the brunt. 
According to a situation report by the U.N. health agency, 183,020 new cases were reported in the 24 hours preceding 10:00 CEST, June 21.

The total included 116,041 in the Americas, 20,248 in South-East Asia, 18,975 in the Eastern Mediterranean, 17,922 in Europe, 8,464 in Africa, and 1,370 in the Western Pacific.

Six months since the coronavirus that causes COVID-19 was first identified in the central Chinese city of Wuhan, Hubei province, 468,331 people have died in 8,952,428 cases, according to Johns Hopkins University. A total of 4,440,000 people have recovered.
As shown in the graphs by Statista below, the U.S. has the most confirmed cases at 2,279,879. That amounts to over a quarter of known cases worldwide. The U.S. is followed by Brazil, at 1,083,341, and Russia with 583,879. 
The U.S. also has the most recorded deaths at 119,977, versus 50,591 in Brazil and 42,717 in the U.K.

Amanda M. Simanek, associate professor in epidemiology at the Joseph J. Zilber School of Public Health, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, told Newsweek the surge in cases may be the result of lockdown measures being eased too soon and/or increasing testing capacity with more cases getting detected.
"In many states, recent increases in cases are related to outbreaks of COVID-19 in food production facilities and congregate settings such as jails or assisted living centers where there is often rapid spread and a high number of cases detected in a short time frame, particularly when targeted testing is carried out," she said.
However, Peter Drobac, a physician and specialist in infectious diseases and public health at the Saïd Business School at the University of Oxford, U.K., told Newsweek the idea increased testing is behind the rise is not supported by evidence.
"I'm extremely concerned that too little is being done to slow the spread of the virus in states where we're seeing surges," he said. "Political leaders are waving it away as a statistical anomaly. Many testing, contact tracing and isolation programs are still weak or non-existent. People are tired, anxious, insecure. Local governments are headed towards fiscal cliffs. And yet, this is just the beginning of the pandemic."


Comparing, BSD versus Linux distributions' Development

My Approach
I am an old guy interested in Linux over 15 years or so and using Linux ONLY for over the past 8 years.
I have tried almost all except ARCH and Absolute Linux (very difficult in the past not NOW with Manjaro and Absolute Linux Live available, it is manageable-It was only installable image, then).
I loved the Live Image where I can run on RAM (one need at least 4 GB RAM for virtual testing-very SLOW and draggy) and see the effects.
I only use Debian now.
All the other distributions I love are on portable external devices (single or multiple).
I love KDE plasma desktop.
The Western Desktop of RubeccaBlack is beautiful. 
Open BSD has a live CD for booting with Internet connection.
If you have a SLOW Internet it takes over 5 hours.
What I do is install it on a external disk and go to sleep and check its funtionality in the morning, leisurely.
I am OLD and LAZY now.
The warning for young guys is that, one has to be patient to USE or TEST Linux.

It a large COLLECTIVE ENTERPRISE unlike Microsoft or Apple.

By the way, RubeccaBlack probably a derivative of Open Mandriva is an excellent Linux distribution (short on packages, though) to try.



Reproduction

Comparing, BSD versus Linux distributions' Development  
Comparing-apples-to-BSDs asks: 

I was reading one of the old articles from the archive. One of the things mentioned was how the BSDs have a distinct approach in terms of packaging the base system relative to userland apps, and that the Linux distros at the time were not following the same practice. Are there Linux distros that have adopted the same approach in modern times? If not, are there technical limitations that are preventing them from doing so, such as some distros supporting multiple kernel versions maybe?

DistroWatch answers: In the article mentioned above, I made the observation that Linux distributions tend to take one of two approaches when it comes to packaging software. Generally a Linux distribution will either offer a rolling release, where virtually all packages are regularly upgraded to their latest stable releases, or a fixed release where almost all packages are kept at a set version number and only receive bug fixes for the life cycle of the distribution. Projects like Arch Linux and Void are popular examples of rolling, always-up-to-date distributions while Fedora and Ubuntu offer fixed platforms.

Basically, with few exceptions, Linux distributions all fell into those two categories where the rolling releases were constantly changing and fixed releases tended to fall behind (or out of date).

The BSDs, in contrast, tend to take an alternative approach. Operating systems like FreeBSD and OpenBSD provide a fixed core (or base) operating system. The base tends to be small, stable, and only changes in small evolutions on a set schedule. The cores of the main BSD branches are fixed. Meanwhile most applications which you can install on the BSDs (LibreOffice, Firefox, the desktop environment, etc) are kept up to date with their upstream versions. The base operating system is fixed and stable while the applications the user runs can be kept up to date with the latest and greatest. This allows the BSDs to offer close to cutting-edge applications without risking a routine update breaking the core of the operating system.

A big part of why the BSDs have this stable core (and updated third-party applications) while Linux distributions tend to take an all-or-nothing approach to version upgrades is the BSDs are developed with all the core operating system components as part of one large project. The FreeBSD kernel, command line tools, filesystems, and base libraries are all handled by the same team. Third-party applications (typically called ports) are made available by another team. In other words, FreeBSD is a whole operating system with almost all the key parts made by one organization.

Linux distributions, on the other hand, are mostly collections of third-party components that are wedded together and managed by a package manager. Debian and Slackware, for the most part, don't develop much of their own software. Most of the work these projects do is to take separate components and weld them together to make an operating system out of independently developed parts. The Linux kernel is made by one team, the core libraries by other teams, the installer by another team, the userland tools by yet another team - all of them operating with their own separate goals and schedules. Linux distributions are made up of hundreds, sometimes thousands, of packages made by teams other than the one publishing the distribution.

This means that Linux distributions do not have one core operating system with key components managed by one team. The kernel, C library, init software, and userland tools come from separate places and their updates are generally not coordinated. This makes it hard for Linux projects to maintain a small, static core while end-user applications get updated.

While difficult, it is not entirely unheard of for some Linux distributions to attempt to maintain a small, stable core platform while regularly updating desktop applications. Some projects take a semi-rolling release approach. If you have used PCLinuxOS or Chakra GNU/Linux you will have seen this in action. The kernel, lower level graphics libraries, and core tools tend to upgrade slowly while desktop applications are updated as new releases come out. Semi-rolling releases can work for a while, but eventually the core components need to "jump ahead" occasionally to keep up.

Some Linux projects attempt to make an image of an operating system and add third-party bundles or containers on top of them. The Fedora CoreOS distribution does this. It maintains a fixed core on which people can add containers or package bundles. The core system in this case is not necessarily fixed, but because it is updated as a whole (rather than as individual packages) the idea is that the core image should always work. The core image approach allows for faster upgrades and keeps the core system somewhat isolated from the applications running on it, but lacks flexibility compared to the semi-rolling and BSD approaches.

A more flexible, and increasingly common solution, is to have a minimum Linux distribution that runs portable packages, such as Flatpak or Snap packages. Portable packages ship with their own dependencies, making them independent of the core operating system and therefore able to update separately from the base distribution and they can be frequently upgraded. The base distribution can then act as a long-term support (LTS), fixed release that is rarely upgraded, much the same way the BSDs handle upgrades. Unfortunately, portable packages are often very large, do not integrate with the host desktop properly, and managing them requires a second package manager to be installed on the operating system.

One more solution is backports. A backport is an updated program which is built to run on an older, fixed-release distribution. Generally backports are kept in their own, separate package repository and added to LTS distributions such as CentOS, Debian or Ubuntu. A backport can be handled by the distribution's default package manager, which is convenient when compared to portable package solutions. However, backports are rarely well tested (compared to the core package repositories), and in my experience, frequently break things on the parent distribution. This makes backports flexible but adds risk of breaking functionality or dependencies on the base operating system.

In short, while there are technical hurdles (such as distributed development) which make it harder for Linux distributions to provide the same sort of base platform isolated from third-party applications, it is possible for Linux distributions to offer this approach. There are several solutions available, each with their strengths and weaknesses. None of these approaches is exactly the same as the BSDs, but some of them are similar and offer some of the same benefits.


Sunday, June 21, 2020

The Central Bank in August elections Bond-smacked in 2015, Public Scolding in 2020:

Reproduction

Bond-smacked in 2015, Public Scolding in 2020:



by Rajan Philips

A new normal has landed. In a stunning development last week, Sri Lanka’s President upbraided Central Bank’s senior officials, and before that Bank of Ceylon officials, for apparently failing to follow government directives and implement specific measures to stimulate the ‘lockdown’ or ‘social-distance’ economy. The bankers were not given the benefit of social distance in what a newspaper called, "back-to-back barrage on the banking sector."

The specific trigger for the meltdown in protocol was the Central Bank’s apparent failure to implement a "proposal made by the President to provide Rs. 150 billion worth of refinancing to banks by accepting the outstanding due as collateral." According to the President, "the Government owes a huge sum of money to companies due to mismanagement in the past;" and this is the outstanding due that the government wants to "be kept as a security for banks to release loans to them. Then they can run the economy. This is a money circulation process. This is a very simple tactic and this is a basic economic principle. But, what are you doing?" The President riled.

The Central Bank officials said nothing during the barrage. They went back and with the approval of the Monetary Board announced the rolling out of new credit schemes to provide commercial banks with additional concessionary funds for a total of Rs 150 billion, to lend to businesses at 4% interest "to revive the economy." In addition, as has been reported, "a new dedicated credit scheme funded by the Central Bank" is to be made available at the same concessionary rates to the "construction sector enterprises," whose unpaid outstanding dues would appear to be at the root of all the public scolding, to borrow from licensed commercial banks, using guarantees issued by the Government equivalent to the amount on past due contract payments.

In a parallel development, Sri Lanka’s Tourism Development Authority has reached an agreement with the Bank of Ceylon, under which the Bank will provide loans at 4.0 percent interest to hotels and travel agencies and restaurants registered under the Tourism Authority, to pay salaries for 144,000 persons for the next six months, based on the EPF/ ETF records supplied by registered tourist industry employers, subject to a corporate guarantee or personal or independent guarantor acceptable to the bank. In addition, the Bank of Ceylon announced its readiness to extend its facilities to multiple sectors as well reduce interest rates. Meeting with People’s Bank’s officials, days after his meeting Central Bank officials, President Rajapaksa called on the state banks "to utilize relief announced by the Central Bank to strengthen the economy and the people affected by COVID-19 pandemic."

In what might be seen as a Main Street/Bank Street split, the President’s rebuke has been welcomed by some as a long overdue antidote to alleged reluctance in the banking sector to "think outside the box" and to be preoccupied with "theoretical reasons" against expanding credit or money supply. Businesses, who complain about the firewall at the banks that stop them from getting loans, are now happy that the President’s intervention will finally bring much needed relief. A spokesperson for small and medium businesses has expressed confidence that "we can now be optimistic of an economic revival." As well, while welcoming the 4% interest rate, small businesses also favour credit being disbursed "on a business basis and on business track records rather than on a collateral basis, because a majority of small businesses have had "massive losses and are unable to show significant collaterals at the moment."

On the other hand, the barrage on the banks has caused head scratching in the more conventional banking and business circles, who also fear of the fall outs for the country’s precarious external sector and financial credibility abroad. To think outside the box, it has been said, one must be used to thinking inside the box, first. Suffice it, for now, to take note of the birth of a new-normal economic principle in Sri Lanka, that if the government owes money to a company or companies for contractually provided goods and services, and if the government is unable to make those payments, then it can direct the country’s banks to extend loans to those companies using their outstanding dues as collateral, for the stated purpose of letting the companies run the economy.

This is a new understanding of the concept of economic stimulus, and a new paradigm for banks and their depositors in the utilization of money that is held between them in law and in trust. Although, there are ways to utilize depositors’ money for public purposes within the law and without breaking trust.

For want of a parliament

What the President’s advisers may not have informed the President is that in no country in the world, only the Central Bank, or the banking sector, has been solely responsible for taking initiatives to address the current Covid-19 economic crisis. Everywhere, governments, legislatures and the banks have acted aggressively but in concert with one another. By far the only exception is Sri Lanka, where there is no legislature to deal with a totally unprecedented health and economic situation. And it is equally totally unfair to blame the Central Bank for apparentlynot doing what other Central Banks are doing, when everywhere the Banks are not doing anything alone except in co-ordination with their respective governments, especially their legislatures. Put another way, for want of a parliament in Sri Lanka, the poor Central Bank got blackguarded.

In the US, Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell has met several times with (Democratic) Speaker (of the House of Representatives) Nancy Pelosi and Treasury Secretary Steve Mnuchin, but hardly ever with (Republican) President Donald Trump. And last week, while Sri Lankan Central Bank Governor and officials were getting their dressing down, Chair Powell and fellow Governors were appearing before US lawmakers to report on the state of the US economy in the midst of the coronavirus crisis. Anyone who follows these matters will know that the US Congress (the House and the Senate) passed legislation with unprecedented (Republican and Democratic) bipartisan support, approving two trillion US dollars as ‘relief package’ for the American people. The Federal Reserve only provided the monetary tools for implementing a good part of the relief package (as it should be properly called as there is nothing to stimulate when the economy is shut down to escape the virus).

It has been the same story of joint action by legislatures and Central Banks in practically every country with a constitutional government, presidential or parliamentary. Sri Lanka, to repeat, is the sole, and sore, exception. In India, the articulate former Congress Finance Minister never misses a moment to criticize the Modi government and its Finance Minister, Nirmala Sitharaman, for coming up short on fiscal initiatives to match the monetary policies initiated by the Reserve Bank of India.

To add a different comment, in passing, the once highflying Modi government is now beleaguered on all fronts, including the Himalayas. Besides taking the blame for the mounting Covid-19 cases, the Modi government has to pacify its enraged Hindutva supporters and explain what it is going to do after the loss of 20 Indian soldiers in a literally sticks and stones border battle with the Chinese. The BJP has to come up with better ways to govern than scapegoating Muslims, browbeating Pakistan, clamping down on Kashmir, and, now, getting into a border fight with the Chinese. The fickle nature of political fortunes should not be lost on the new Administration in Colombo.

Nor should it be lost on the Administration that Sri Lanka’s Central Bank had already initiated measures analogous to those by other Central Banks, but acting within far greater constraints. What is missing in Sri Lanka, and to a far greater extent than practically anywhere else and especially among other South Asian countries, are the matching fiscal initiatives. It is no secret that Sri Lanka’s economic situation was in terrible shape even before COVID-19, and that creates huge limitations for the Central Bank’s maneuverability.

While central banks in developed economies can make decisions and operate with relative independence from external forces, their counterparts in developing economies are constrained to be far more mindful of the external implications of domestic initiatives, especially the implications for balance of payments and the currency. This has been the case ever since international capital flows and trade became more important than foreign aid for developing countries. It is unreasonable, therefore, for Sri Lanka’s political leaders, President Rajapaksa now and former Finance Minister Ravi Karunanayake previously, and now again, to blame the Central Bank for not aggressively dancing to the tunes of their fly-by-night advisers. 

And to publicly pick on the qualifications and salaries of bank officials is terribly beyond the pale.

It is a strange coincidence that in two August, or not so august, elections - first in 2015 and now in 2020, the Central Bank is caught in the eye of the political storm. Although there is no political storm to speak of for the upcoming election, President Gotabaya Rajapaksa chose to remind Central Bank officials of the 2015 bonds scam: "You were there when the Central Bank bonds scam was executed, he said. "If you supported them to commit this crime, there is no reason for all of you not to join hands with me to deliver justice. Public must be made aware of the issue of how we move forward with this kind of officials. The people of this country have bestowed a great power on me to build this country. I request all of you to allow me to build this country."

It is stranger logic to suggest, while invoking the electorally bestowed power, that someone who allegedly was party to an earlier crime should join hands with the government to deliver justice. Perhaps that is the way political karma now works in Sri Lanka - those who commit crimes in one regime, get a second chance to deliver justice in the next. The truth of the matter is that no one from the Central Bank who met with the President may have had anything to do with the 2015 bond scam, or anything before or after. And Professor W.D. Lakshman who stepped in as Governor as a matter of national service – he too had to be at the receiving end of the barrage. 
Hopefully, he received some personal apology, either before or after the scolding. 
Regardless of individuals, it is the institutions that are being tarnished. The Parliament is irreparably damaged. 
The Central Bank is now taking its turn. 
What will be next?

Postscript: 

In my article last Sunday (Archaeology politics and prejudice clouding Vistas of Prosperity and Splendour), there was an inadvertent error in the attribution of the Ibbankatuawa archaeological excavation in Dambulla. 

The Ibbankatuawa (IBB) megalithic cemetery was first excavated by Raja De Silva of the Department of Archaeological Survey of Ceylon in 1970. A dozen years later, in 1982, the late Senake Bandaranayake recommenced excavation as part of the Dambulla cultural triangle project. 

Excavations continued intermittently in 1983/84, 1986, and again from 1988 to 1990. Priyantha Karunaratne was involved in the excavation both at the IBB cemetery and the nearby IBB settlement area. 

I acknowledge the information kindly provided by Manel Fonseka.

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!