CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY AND MYANMAR ROLE

1/14/2018 Civilian control of the military - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military 1/10
Civilian control of the military
Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country's strategic decision-making in the
hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. The reverse situation, where professional military officers control national
politics, is called a military dictatorship. A lack of control over the military may result in a state within a state. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington's
writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarized the civilian control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of
policy as determined by civilian authority".[1]
Civilian control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable liberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a
democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. One example is the People's
Republic of China. Mao Zedong stated that "Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party,"
reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China (and communist parties in general) as decision-makers in Marxist–Leninist and Maoist theories of
democratic centralism.[2]
As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn, "civilian control is not a fact but a process".[3] Affirmations of respect for the
values of civilian control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civilian leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of
broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of
governing politicians. National Leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military
commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter the bureaucratic arena to
advocate for or against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear-cut lines of civilian control.
Rationales
Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers
Domestic law enforcement
Maoist approach
Methods of asserting civilian control
A civilian commander-in-chief
Composition of the military
Contents

Technological developments
Restrictions on Political Activities
Political officers
Military dislike of political directives
Case study: United States
Extent
See also
References
Further reading
Advocates of civilian control generally take a Clausewitzian view of war, emphasizing its political
character. The words of Georges Clemenceau, "War is too serious a matter to entrust to military men"
(also frequently rendered as "War is too important to be left to the generals"), wryly reflect this view.
Given that broad strategic decisions, such as the decision to declare a war, start an invasion, or end a
conflict, have a major impact on the citizens of the country, they are seen by civilian control advocates as
best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by their political representatives), rather than left
solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a special government agency, which is
supposed to implement, rather than formulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical
force. Kohn succinctly summarizes this view when he writes that:
The point of civilian control is to make security subordinate to the larger purposes of a
nation, rather than the other way around. The purpose of the military is to defend society,
not to define it.[3]
A state's effective use of force is an issue of great concern for all national leaders, who must rely on the
military to supply this aspect of their authority. The danger of granting military leaders full autonomy or
sovereignty is that they may ignore or supplant the democratic decision-making process, and use physical
force, or the threat of physical force, to achieve their preferred outcomes; in the worst cases, this may
Rationales
Admiral John B. Nathman (far right) and Admiral
William J. Fallon salute during honors arrival of
Secretary of the Navy Gordon R. England at a
change of command ceremony in 2005. A
subordinate of the civilian Secretary of Defense,
the Secretary of the Navy is the civilian Head of
the Department of the Navy, which includes the
U.S. Navy and the Marine Corps.

lead to a coup or military dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domestic political opposition through intimidation or sheer physical
force, interfering with the ability to have free and fair elections, a key part of the democratic process. This poses the paradox that "because we fear others we create
an institution of violence to protect us, but then we fear the very institution we created for protection".[4] Also, military personnel, because of the nature of their
job, are much more willing to use force to settle disputes than civilians because they are trained military personnel that specialize strictly in warfare. The military is
authoritative and hierarchical, rarely allowing discussion and prohibiting dissention.[5] For instance, in the Empire of Japan, prime ministers and almost everyone
in high positions were military people like Hideki Tojo, and advocated and basically pressured the leaders to start military conflicts against China and others
because they believed that they would ultimately be victorious.
Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, "Even when there is a necessity of the
military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it".[6] Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry,
a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who wrote that "[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican
Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism."[6]
In Federalist No. 8, one of The Federalist papers documenting the ideas of some of the Founding Fathers, Alexander Hamilton expressed concern that maintaining
a large standing army would be a dangerous and expensive undertaking. In his principal argument for the ratification of the proposed constitution, he argued that
only by maintaining a strong union could the new country avoid such a pitfall. Using the European experience as a negative example and the British experience as a
positive one, he presented the idea of a strong nation protected by a navy with no need of a standing army. The implication was that control of a large military force
is, at best, difficult and expensive, and at worst invites war and division. He foresaw the necessity of creating a civilian government that kept the military at a
distance.
James Madison, another writer of many of The Federalist papers,[7] expressed his concern about a standing military in comments before the Constitutional
Convention in June 1787:
In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same
tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to
liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing
maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved
the people.
[8]
The United States Constitution placed considerable limitations on the legislature. Coming from a tradition of legislative superiority in government, many were
concerned that the proposed Constitution would place so many limitations on the legislature that it would become impossible for such a body to prevent an
executive from starting a war. Hamilton argued in Federalist No. 26 that it would be equally as bad for a legislature to be unfettered by any other agency and that
Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers

restraints would actually be more likely to preserve liberty. James Madison, in Federalist No. 47, continued Hamilton’s argument that distributing powers among
the various branches of government would prevent any one group from gaining so much power as to become unassailable. In Federalist No. 48, however, Madison
warned that while the separation of powers is important, the departments must not be so far separated as to have no ability to control the others.
Finally, in Federalist No. 51, Madison argued that to create a government that relied primarily on the good nature of the incumbent to ensure proper government
was folly. Institutions must be in place to check incompetent or malevolent leaders. Most importantly, no single branch of government ought to have control over
any single aspect of governing. Thus, all three branches of government must have some control over the military, and the system of checks and balances
maintained among the other branches would serve to help control the military.
Hamilton and Madison thus had two major concerns: (1) the detrimental effect on liberty and democracy of a large standing army and (2) the ability of an
unchecked legislature or executive to take the country to war precipitously. These concerns drove American military policy for the first century and a half of the
country’s existence. While armed forces were built up during wartime, the pattern after every war up to and including World War II was to demobilize quickly and
return to something approaching pre-war force levels. However, with the advent of the Cold War in the 1950s, the need to create and maintain a sizable peacetime
military force "engendered new concerns" of militarism and about how such a large force would affect civil–military relations in the United States.[9]
The United States' Posse Comitatus Act, passed in 1878, prohibits any part of the Army or the Air Force (since the U.S. Air Force evolved from the U.S. Army) from
engaging in domestic law enforcement activities unless they do so pursuant to lawful authority. Similar prohibitions apply to the Navy and Marine Corps by service
regulation, since the actual Posse Comitatus Act does not apply to them. The Coast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus since it normally operates under the
Department of Homeland Security versus the Department of Defense and enforces U.S. laws, even when operating as a service with the U.S. Navy.
The act is often misunderstood to prohibit any use of federal military forces in law enforcement, but this is not the case. For example, the President has explicit
authority under the Constitution and federal law to use federal forces or federalized militias to enforce the laws of the United States. The act's primary purpose is to
prevent local law enforcement officials from utilizing federal forces in this way by forming a "posse" consisting of federal Soldiers or Airmen.[10]
There are, however, practical political concerns in the United States that make the use of federal military forces less desirable for use in domestic law enforcement.
Under the U.S. Constitution, law and order is primarily a matter of state concern. As a practical matter, when military forces are necessary to maintain domestic
order and enforce the laws, state militia forces under state control i.e., that state's Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard are usually the force of first
resort, followed by federalized state militia forces i.e., the Army National Guard and/or Air National Guard "federalized" as part of the U.S. Army and/or U.S. Air
Force, with active federal forces (to include "federal" reserve component forces other than the National Guard) being the least politically palatable option.
Domestic law enforcement
Maoist approach

Maoist military-political theories of people's war and democratic centralism also support the subordination of military forces to the directives of the communist
party (although the guerrilla experience of many early leading Communist Party of China figures may make their status as civilians somewhat ambiguous). In a
1929 essay On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Mao explicitly refuted "comrades [who] regard military affairs and politics as opposed to each other and
[who] refuse to recognize that military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks", prescribing increased scrutiny of the People's Liberation Army
by the Party and greater political training of officers and enlistees as a means of reducing military autonomy [11]. In Mao's theory, the military—which serves both
as a symbol of the revolution and an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat—is not merely expected to defer to the direction of the ruling non-uniformed
Party members (who today exercise control in the People's Republic of China through the Central Military Commission), but also to actively participate in the
revolutionary political campaigns of the Maoist era.
Civilian leaders cannot usually hope to challenge their militaries by means of force, and thus must guard against any potential usurpation of powers through a
combination of policies, laws, and the inculcation of the values of civilian control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or
other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent the disproportionate strength that a country's military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified
on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of
power in order to enforce the civilian control of the military.
The establishment of a civilian president or other government figure as the military's commander-in-chief within the chain of command is one legal construct for
the propagation of civilian control.
In the United States, Article I of the Constitution gives the Congress the power to declare war (in the War Powers Clause), while Article II of the Constitution
establishes the President as the commander-in-chief. Ambiguity over when the President could take military action without declaring war resulted in the War
Powers Resolution of 1973.
American presidents have used the power to dismiss high-ranking officers as a means to assert policy and strategic control. Three examples include Abraham
Lincoln's dismissal of George McClellan in the American Civil War when McClellan failed to pursue the Confederate Army of Northern Virginia following the Battle
of Antietam, Harry S. Truman relieving Douglas MacArthur of command in the Korean War after MacArthur repeatedly contradicted the Truman administration's
stated policies on the war's conduct, and Barack Obama's acceptance of Stanley McChrystal's resignation in the War in Afghanistan after a Rolling Stone article was
published where he mocked several members of the Obama administration, including Vice President Joe Biden.
Methods of asserting civilian control
A civilian commander-in-chief
Composition of the military

Differing opinions exist as to the desirability of distinguishing the military as a body separate from the larger society.
In The Soldier and the State, Huntington argued for what he termed "objective civilian control", "focus[ing] on a
politically neutral, autonomous, and professional officer corps".[1] This autonomous professionalism, it is argued, best
inculcates an esprit de corps and sense of distinct military corporateness that prevents political interference by sworn
servicemen and -women. Conversely, the tradition of the citizen-soldier holds that "civilianizing" the military is the
best means of preserving the loyalty of the armed forces towards civilian authorities, by preventing the development of
an independent "caste" of warriors that might see itself as existing fundamentally apart from the rest of society. In the
early history of the United States, according to Michael Cairo,
[the] principle of civilian control... embodied the idea that every qualified citizen was responsible for the
defense of the nation and the defense of liberty, and would go to war, if necessary. Combined with the
idea that the military was to embody democratic principles and encourage citizen participation, the only
military force suitable to the Founders was a citizen militia, which minimized divisions between officers
and the enlisted.[6]
In a less egalitarian practice, societies may also blur the line between "civilian" and "military" leadership by making
direct appointments of non-professionals (frequently social elites benefitting from patronage or nepotism) to an officer
rank. A more invasive method, most famously practiced in the Soviet Union and People's Republic of China, involves
active monitoring of the officer corps through the appointment of political commissars, posted parallel to the
uniformed chain of command and tasked with ensuring that national policies are carried out by the armed forces. The
regular rotation of soldiers through a variety of different postings is another effective tool for reducing military
autonomy, by limiting the potential for soldiers' attachment to any one particular military unit. Some governments
place responsibility for approving promotions or officer candidacies with the civilian government, requiring some
degree of deference on the part of officers seeking advancement through the ranks.
Historically, direct control over military forces deployed for war was hampered by the technological limits of command, control, and communications; national
leaders, whether democratically elected or not, had to rely on local commanders to execute the details of a military campaign, or risk centrally-directed orders'
obsolescence by the time they reached the front lines. The remoteness of government from the action allowed professional soldiers to claim military affairs as their
own particular sphere of expertise and influence; upon entering a state of war, it was often expected that the generals and field marshals would dictate strategy and
tactics, and the civilian leadership would defer to their informed judgments.
An immensely popular hero of World
War II, General Douglas MacArthur's
public insistence on the need to
expand the Korean War, over the
objections of President Harry S.
Truman, led to the termination of
his command.
Technological developments

Improvements in information technology and its application to wartime command and control (a process sometimes
labeled the "Revolution in Military Affairs") has allowed civilian leaders removed from the theater of conflict to assert
greater control over the actions of distant military forces. Precision-guided munitions and real-time videoconferencing
with field commanders now allow the civilian leadership to intervene even at the tactical decision-making level,
designating particular targets for destruction or preservation based on political calculations or the counsel of non-
uniformed advisors.
In the United States the Hatch Act of 1939 does not directly apply to the military, however, Department of Defense
Directive 1344.10 (DoDD 1344.10) essentially applies the same rules to the military. This helps to ensure a non-
partisan military and ensure smooth and peaceful transitions of power.
Political officers screened for appropriate ideology have been integrated into supervisory roles within militaries as a
way to maintain the control by political rulers. Historically they are associated most strongly with the Soviet Union and
China rather than liberal democracies.
While civilian control forms the normative standard in almost every society outside of military dictatorships, its
practice has often been the subject of pointed criticism from both uniformed and non-uniformed observers, who object
to what they view as the undue "politicization" of military affairs, especially when elected officials or political
appointees micromanage the military, rather than giving the military general goals and objectives (like "Defeat Country
X"), and letting the military decide how best to carry those orders out. By placing responsibility for military decision-
making in the hands of non-professional civilians, critics argue, the dictates of military strategy are subsumed to the
political, with the effect of unduly restricting the fighting capabilities of the nation's armed forces for what should be immaterial or otherwise lower priority
concerns.
The "Revolt of the Admirals" that occurred in 1949 was an attempt by senior US Navy personnel, to force a change in budgets directly opposed to the directives
given by the Civilian leadership.
During the term of Lyndon B.
Johnson, the President and his
advisors often chose specific
bombing targets in Vietnam on the
basis of larger geopolitical
calculations, without professional
knowledge of the weapons or
tactics. Apropos of LBJ's direction of
the bombing campaign in Vietnam,
no air warfare specialists attended
the Tuesday lunches at which the
targeting decisions were made.[12]
Restrictions on Political Activities
Political officers
Military dislike of political directives
Case study: United States

U.S. President Bill Clinton faced frequent allegations throughout his time in office (particularly after the Battle of Mogadishu) that he was ignoring military goals
out of political and media pressure—a phenomenon termed the "CNN effect". Politicians who personally lack military training and experience but who seek to
engage the nation in military action may risk resistance and being labeled "chickenhawks" by those who disagree with their political goals.
In contesting these priorities, members of the professional military leadership and their non-uniformed supporters may participate in the bureaucratic bargaining
process of the state's policy-making apparatus, engaging in what might be termed a form of regulatory capture as they attempt to restrict the policy options of
elected officials when it comes to military matters. An example of one such set of conditions is the "Weinberger Doctrine", which sought to forestall another
American intervention like that which occurred in the Vietnam War (which had proved disastrous for the morale and fighting integrity of the U.S. military) by
proposing that the nation should only go to war in matters of "vital national interest", "as a last resort", and, as updated by Weinberger's disciple Colin Powell, with
"overwhelming force". The process of setting military budgets forms another contentious intersection of military and non-military policy, and regularly draws
active lobbying by rival military services for a share of the national budget.
Nuclear weapons in the U.S. are controlled by the civilian United States Department of Energy, not by the Department of Defense.
During the 1990s and 2000s, public controversy over LGBT policy in the U.S. military led to many military leaders and personnel being asked for their opinions on
the matter and being given deference although the decision was ultimately not theirs to make.
During his tenure, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld raised the ire of the military by attempting to reform its structure away from traditional infantry and
toward a lighter, faster, more technologically driven force. In April 2006, Rumsfeld was severely criticized by some retired military officers for his handling of the
Iraq war, while other retired military officers came out in support of Rumsfeld. Although no active military officers have spoken out against Rumsfeld, the actions
of these officers is still highly unusual. Some news accounts have attributed the actions of these generals to the Vietnam war experience, in which officers did not
speak out against the administration's handling of military action. Later in the year, immediately after the November elections in which the Democrats gained
control of the Congress, Rumsfeld resigned.
As of 2015, Military dictatorships, where there is no civilian control of the military, are:
Thailand
Other countries generally have civilian control of the military, to one degree or another. Strong democratic control of the military is a prerequisite for membership
in NATO. Strong democracy and rule of law, implying democratic control of the military, are prerequisites for membership in the European Union.
Civil–military relations
Might makes right
Extent
See also

Military–industrial complex
National Security Act
Political commissar
Revolt of the Admirals
Separation of powers
State within a state
Armed Forces & Society
1. Taylor, Edward R. Command in the 21st Century: An Introduction to Civil-Military Affairs (http://handle.dtic.mil/100.2/ADA346358) (pdf), United States Navy
Postgraduate School thesis. 1998: 30-32.
2. Mao Zedong, English language translation by Marxists.org. Problems of War and Strategy (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/selected-works/v
olume-2/mswv2_12.htm). 1938. (See also: Wikiquote: Mao Zedong.)
3. Kohn, Richard H. An Essay on Civilian Control of the Military (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html). 1997.
4. Peter D. Feaver. 1996. "The Civil-Military Problematique: Huntington, Janowitz and the Question of Civilian Control." Armed Forces & Society (http://afs.sage
pub.com/cgi/reprint/23/2/149). 23(2): 149–78.
5. "Kohn: Civilian Control" (http://www.unc.edu/depts/diplomat/AD_Issues/amdipl_3/kohn.html). Unc.edu. Retrieved 2015-12-11.
6. Cairo, Michael F. Democracy Papers: Civilian Control of the Military (https://web.archive.org/web/20051026185242/http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/de
mocracy/dmpaper12.htm), U.S. Department of State International Information Programs.
7. Gottfried Dietze. 1960. The Federalist: A Classic on Federalism and Free Government. Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press.
8. Max Farrand. 1911. Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 (http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwfr.html). New Haven: Yale University Press. 1:465.
9. Donald S. Inbody. 2009. Grand Army of the Republic or Grand Army of the Republicans? Political Party and Ideological Preferences of American Enlisted
Personnel. Faculty Publications – Political Science (http://ecommons.txstate.edu/polsfacp/51). Paper 51.
10. Hendell, Garri B. "[1] (http://publius.oxfordjournals.org/content/41/2/336)" "Domestic Use of the Armed Forces to Maintain Law and Order—posse comitatus
Pitfalls at the Inauguration of the 44th President" Publius (2011) 41(2): 336-348 first published online May 6, 2010 doi:10.1093/publius/pjq014 (https://doi.o
rg/10.1093%2Fpublius%2Fpjq014)
11. Mao Zedong, English language translation by Marxists.org. On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party (http://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/mao/select
ed-works/volume-1/mswv1_5.htm). 1929.
12. "Washington's Management of the Rolling Thunder Campaign" (http://www.history.navy.mil/colloquia/cch4c.htm), M. Jacobsen, US Naval Historical Center
Colloquium on Contemporary History Project
References
Further reading

von Clausewitz, Carl. On War – Volume One
1832 German language edition available on the internet at the Clausewitz Homepage (http://www.clausewitz.com/CWZHOME/VomKriege/VKTOC.htm)
1874 English language translation by Colonel J.J. Granham downloadable here (http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/1946) from Project Gutenberg.
1982 Penguin Classics paperback version, ISBN 0-14-044427-0.
Desch, Michael C. Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment Johns Hopkins University Press, 2001. ISBN 0-8018-6059-8
Feaver, Peter D. Armed Servants: Agency, Oversight, and Civil-Military Relations. Harvard University Press, 2005 ISBN 0-674-01761-7
Finer, Samel E. The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics. Transaction Publishers, 2002. ISBN 0-7658-0922-2
Hendell, Garri B. "Domestic Use of the Armed Forces to Maintain Law and Order – posse comitatus Pitfalls at the Inauguration of the 44th President" Publius
(2011) 41(2): 336–48 first published online May 6, 2010 doi:10.1093/publius/pjq014 (https://doi.org/10.1093%2Fpublius%2Fpjq014)
Huntington, Samuel P.. Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Belknap Press, 1981 edition. ISBN 0-674-81736-2
Levy, Yagil. "A Revised Model of Civilian Control of the Military: The Interaction between the Republican Exchange and the Control Exchange" (http://afs.sag
epub.com/content/38/4/529.abstract), Armed Forces & Society, Vol. 38, No. 4 (2012)
Janowitz, Morris. The Professional Soldier. Free Press, 1964, ISBN 0-02-916180-0.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Civilian_control_of_the_military&oldid=814159330"
This page was last edited on 7 December 2017, at 05:27.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms of Use and
Privacy Policy. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc., a non-profit organization.

What is meant by‘democratic control of
armed forces’?
How is democratic control related
to other concepts addressing the
relationship between the armed forces
and society?
What are the key features of an effective
system of democratic control?
Why is democratic control important?
How are democratic control norms
implemented?
What are the main functions of the
actors involved in democratic control?
What are the main international norms
for democratic control?
What are some of the special challenges
of post-authoritarian and post-conflict
environments?
What are some of the key debates
concerning democratic control?
D CA F
Democratic Control of Armed Forces
DCAF Backgrounder
What is meant by‘democratic control of
armed forces’?
Democratic control of armed forces refers to the norms
and standards governing the relationship between
the armed forces and society, whereby the armed forces
are subordinated to democratically-elected authorities
and subject to the oversight of the judiciary as well as
the media and civil society organisations. Democratic
control of armed forces is not to be confused with DCAF,
the international foundation under Swiss law that
sponsors this Backgrounder series and whose founding
was inspired by the importance attached to the principles
of democratic control.
In current usage, armed forces are often understood
as meaning all statutory bodies with a capacity to use force,
including the military, police, gendarmerie, intelligence
services, border, coast and penitentiary guards and other
public security forces, as well as non-statutory armed
groups. For the purposes of this Backgrounder, the term
‘armed forces’ is used in the traditional way and refers
only to the military, namely, the army, navy, air force and
special forces such as marines. However, many of the
observations made in this Backgrounder about the
relationship between the military and society also apply
to the relationship between other armed forces and
society.
How is democratic control related to other
concepts addressing the relationship between
the armed forces and society?
Thinking about the relationship between the armed
forces and society has evolved through several phases.
The notion of civil-military relations constituted the
dominant approach during the Cold War. It focused on
the need for the military to be subordinate to society,
not a self-serving actor pursuing its own interests and
objectives. With the end of the Cold War, there was a
growing emphasis on the idea that the military not
only had to be subject to societal control, but that this
control needed to be democratically constituted. In 1994,
negotiations in the then CSCE led to an agreement by
all participating states on a politically binding Code of
ThisdocumentispartoftheDCAFBackgrounder
series, which provides practitioners with
concise introductions to a variety of issues in
the ﬁeld of Security Sector Governance and
Security Sector Reform.
Geneva Centre for the
Democratic Control
of Armed Forces
05/2008

2
Conduct on Political-Military Aspects of Security.
The Code represented a further progression in
that it called for the democratic control of internal
security forces in addition to the military.
The last decade has witnessed further progress
as the focus has shifted to the need for democratic
governance of the entire security sector.
Security sector reform and governance (SSR/G)
have generated new thinking on the subject
of the armed forces-society relationship. For
example, SSR/G has encouraged the adoption
of a more comprehensive understanding of the
security sector to include such non-statutory
actors as private security and military companies,
as well as the traditional non-state security forces
that often play an important role in providing
security in developing countries.
What are the key features of an effective
system of democratic control?
An effective system of democratic control is
characterised by the following elements:
• Civilian control. Civilian authorities
have control over the military’s missions,
composition, budget and procurement
policies. Military policy is defined or approved
by the civilian leadership, but the military
enjoys substantial operational autonomy in
determining which operations are required
to achieve the policy objectives defined by
the civilian authority.
• Democratic governance. Democratic
parliamentary and judicial institutions, a
strong civil society and an independent media
oversee the performance of the military.
This ensures its accountability to both the
population and the government, and promotes
transparency in its decisions and actions.
• Civilian expertise. Civilians have the necessary
expertise to fulfil their defence management
and oversight responsibilities. This is tempered
by respect for the professional expertise of the
military, in particular as civilians often have
limited operational experience.
• Non-interference in domestic politics.
Neither the military as an institution nor
individual military leaders attempt to influence
domestic politics.
• Ideological neutrality. The military does
not endorse any particular ideology or ethos
beyond that of allegiance to the country.
• Minimal role in the national economy. The
military may be the largest national employer
and have links to defence-related economic
sectors. This does not, however, dilute the
military’s loyalty to the democratic civilian
leadership, undermine its primary mission
or lead to disproportionate competition or
interference with the civilian industrial sector.
• Effective chain of command. There is an
effective chain of command within the military
that ensures accountability to society and its
oversight institutions, promotes respect for all
Evolution of the military-society relationship
civil-military relations
democratic control of
all the armed forces
democratic control of the military
democratic governance of
the security sector
Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces

3
relevant laws and regulations, and seeks to
ensure professionalism in the military.
• Respect for the rights of military personnel.
Members of the armed forces are free to
exercise their rights.
Why is democratic control important?
Democratic control of armed forces is a pre-
condition for ensuring that
• the political supremacy of the democratically-
elected civilian authorities is respected,
• the rule of law and human rights are
safeguarded,
• the armed forces serve the interests of the
population and enjoy popular support and
legitimacy,
• the policies and capabilities of the military are
in line with the country’s political objectives
and commensurate with its resources and
• the military is not misused for political
purposes.
Since the end of the Cold War, several
developments have pushed the issue of
democratic control to the forefront:
• the unprecedented wave of democratisation
and the proliferation of fragile and failed states,
where the need for, or the lack of, democratic
control has been of key importance;
• the use of democratic control norms as inter-
state confidence-building measures, such as
in the case of the OSCE Code of Conduct on
Political-Military Aspects of Security;
• the enlargements of the EU, NATO and the
Council of Europe, with their democratic
control-related admission requirements;
• the increased emphasis on the democratic
control of armed forces in the context of peace
agreements,peacebuilding,conflictprevention
and sustainable development;
• the transformation of the armed forces of
many states in the international community in
response to new strategic conditions.
How are democratic control norms
implemented?
The principles of democratic control are
implemented through a variety of mechanisms:
1) a clear legal framework that incorporates the
main principles of democratic control:
• democratic control principles may be explicitly
addressed in a country’s constitution; for
example, as in the U.S. Constitution (1787) and
its Polish counterpart (1997)
• national parliaments may adopt specific laws
introducing or strengthening democratic
control principles; recent examples include
Ukraine’s Law on Democratic Civil Control
of State Military and Law-Enforcement
Organizations (2003) and Sierra Leone’s Lomé
Peace Agreement (Ratification) Act (1999),
which stipulate that the military shall be
accountable to civilian leadership.
2) the creation of institutional mechanisms that
• guarantee that the rule of law is respected
throughout the ranks with the assistance of
institutions such as military ombudspersons
or inspectors general; in Canada, for example,
Democratic Control Paradigms
There are two main control paradigms. One is based
on the way control is exercised. Vertical control is
the exercise of ‘top-down’influence over the military.
Horizontal control entails commenting on or
otherwise informally influencing matters of defence
policy and occurs via the media and civil society
organisations. Self-control refers to the actions that
the military itself performs to ensure that rules are
respected.
Another classification is based on the timing of the
controls. Proactive control consists of steps aimed
at addressing future problems. Reactive control
occurs after decisions have been made and
includes review of defence policies or the audit of
expenditures. Operational control takes place
during military operations and involves a political
intervention in the decisions of the military chain of
command.

4
Actor Primary role Functions
Legislature
parliament and relevant
committees (security and
defence, budget, etc.)
Legality and
legitimacy
Verticalcontrol
- definition of basic policy
directions
- adoption of constitution,
laws and budget oversight
through ‘purse control’,
hearings, debates
Executive
government, prime minister,
president,
national defence/ security
council, ministries of defence,
finance, internal and external
affairs
Effectiveness and
efficiency
Verticalcontrol
- development and
implementation of security
policy
- force planning management
and financial control
Judiciary
constitutional court, supreme
court, court of appeal,lower
courts and prosecution
offices, ombudsmen offices,
independent auditing bodies
Rule of law
and respect for
human rights
Verticalcontrol
- protection of constitution
and laws
- administration of justice in
the security sector
- investigation and resolution
of complaints reported by
citizens
Mediaand
CivilSociety
media,non-governmental
organisations, research
institutes, think tanks,
independent experts, political
parties and security-related
corporate actors
Transparency,
accountability,
education and
capacity-building
Horizontalcontrol
- public debate and oversight
- development of security
policy
- training and awareness-
building
- financial supervision
Armedforces
military inspectorate, military
courts, general staff, officers
corps, enlisted personnel
Self-control,
neutrality and
professionalism
Vertical+horizontal
control
- internal control
- protection of human rights
- respect for laws and
professional standards
What are the main functions of the actors involved in democratic control ?
The table below provides an overview of the actors involved in the democratic control of armed
forces and the typical forms of management and control of the military:

5
the creation of an ombudsman was prompted
by the involvement of Canadian peacekeepers
in human rights abuses in Somalia.
• conduct audits to prevent corruption and
fraud that might otherwise remain concealed
from the public due to the classified nature
of some military information; such audits are
carried out by independent parliamentary
and media investigations, as for example
in Indonesia where an audit to scrutinise
the financial practices of military-owned
foundations was carried out in 2000.
3) the development of educational measures
that
• attempt to inculcate a new security culture
in civilian and military communities through
a focus on such issues as civil-military co-
operation and better integration of armed
forces within society; for example, after World
War II Germany adopted the concept of
soldiers as ‘citizens in uniform’ to ensure that
military personnel operated as part of, rather
than apart from, the civilian population.
• involve training of security personnel on such
issues as democratic values, human rights,
international humanitarian law and democratic
control of armed forces norms developed by
international organisations; the Swiss army, for
instance, conducts courses on international
humanitarian law for its own personnel and
for members of the armed forces of other
countries.
What are the main international norms
for democratic control?
The need to respect democratic control norms
and standards has been articulated in a variety of
contexts. The norms contained in the OSCE Code
of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of Security
are by far the furthest reaching. Apart from these,
democratic control norms have figured in UN
reports and resolutions, the Carnovale-Simon
test for NATO entry, EU development assistance
and membership policies, Council of Europe
Recommendations and the draft ECOWAS Code
of Conduct for Armed and Security Forces.
Democratic control norms in
the OSCE Code of Conduct
Maintenance of military capabilities commensurate
with individual or collective security needs
Determination of military capabilities on the basis of
democratic procedures
Non-imposition of military domination over other
OSCE states
Stationing of armed forces on the territory of
another state in accordance with freely negotiated
agreements and international law
Democratic political control of military, paramilitary,
internal security forces, intelligence services and
police
Integration of armed forces with civil society
Effective guidance to and control of military,
paramilitary and security forces by constitutionally
established authorities vested with democratic
legitimacy
Legislative approval of defence expenditures
Restraint in military expenditure
Transparency and public access to information
related to the armed forces
Political neutrality of armed forces
Measures to guard against accidental or unauthorised
use of military means
No toleration or support for forces that are not
accountable to or controlled by their constitutionally
established authorities
Paramilitary forces not to be permitted to acquire
combat capabilities in excess of those for which they
were established
Recruitment or call-up to be consistent with human
rights and fundamental freedoms
Reflection in laws or other relevant documents of the
rights and duties of armed forces personnel
Armed forces’compliance with the provisions of
international humanitarian law
Armed forces personnel’s individual accountability
under national and international law
Protection of the rights of personnel serving in the
armed forces
(The OSCE Code of Conduct on Politico-Military Aspects of
Security, 1995)
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•

6
What are some of the special challenges
of post-authoritarian and post-conflict
environments?
In post-authoritarian and post-conflict countries,
democratic control may be particularly difficult to
implement for a number of reasons:
• a lack of political consensus among the
country’s main communities and institutions;
• illegitimate civilian and military institutions,
and a marginalised civil society;
• the existence of rebel groups and the need to
integrate them into the state’s armed forces;
• a lack of civilian managerial and oversight
capacity, and insufficient domestic expertise in
defence affairs;
• a resistance to reform on the part of the military
or other actors;
• low public trust in the military, owing to past
abuses and continuing impunity;
• a lack of domestic resources to design and
implement reforms.
In post-conflict environments, the government
may additionally face such problems as residual
violence, predatory behaviour against the local
population on the part of rogue elements within
the military and the prevalence of non-statutory
armed groups.
In such environments, the following measures
may be called for:
• the establishment of a truth and reconciliation
mechanism to help society and the military to
move beyond past abuses;
• the disarmament, demobilisation, and re-
integration (DDR) of former combatants, and
vetting of the security forces;
• the de-politicisation of the military command
and, as necessary, of the rank and file, as
well as programmes to reorient the role of
the military and (re-)create a functional link
between the military and the rest of society;
• the (re-)building of military management and
oversight capacity as well as military-relevant
civilian expertise.
In post-authoritarian and post-conflict
environments, external donors may need to be
associated with efforts to restore democratic
control, providing both professional expertise
and the necessary resources required to support
reform.
What are some of the key debates
concerning democratic control?
Control over defence policy: While the military
has expertise in many areas of national security,
military advisors to the civil leadership may be
biased towards goals such as increasing the
defence budget at the expense of addressing
other aspects of security. At the same time, the
civilian leadership may lack experience in defence
affairs, which is crucial to policy formulation and
oversight. The military must be involved in the
defence planning process, but an appropriately-
informed civilian leadership should have final say
on all matters.
Civil-military gap: The military tends to be an
insular institution, due in part to its desire to
preserve characteristics it often perceives as
crucial to its efficiency, such as esprit de corps,
a strong work ethic and in some cases,
conservative social values. When the cultural,
political and ethnic composition of the military
differs from that of society as a whole, a ‘civil-
Code of Conduct for Armed and Security Forces
in West Africa
In 2006, the ECOWAS Code of Conduct for Armed and
Security Forces in West Africa was adopted by the chiefs of
staff of the fifteen ECOWAS member states. Largely inspired
by the internal and cross-border conflicts that have plagued
West Africa in recent years, the ECOWAS Code, is more
advanced than the OSCE Code in terms of democratic
control. It is also more detailed in regard to implementation,
in particular as concerns the institutions of national and
sub-regional ombudsmen, which are not mentioned in the
OSCE Code. DCAF has facilitated the development of the
ECOWAS Code, whose approval by the ECOWAS Council of
Ministers and Heads of States is pending.

7
military gap’ can emerge. For example, if
the military is not committed to the notion
of civil supremacy over military affairs,
there is an increased risk of inappropriate
military involvement in the country’s political
life. A civil-military gap can also reduce public
acceptance of the military, which can in turn
lead to its further isolation. In particular, the
military should not exclude individuals based
on characteristics such as race, ethnicity, class,
religion, gender or sexual orientation. In cases
where certain groups are marginalised in
society, special measures may be necessary in
order to increase their representation in the
military.
Role of civilian leadership in time of conflict:
Military officials often advocate maintaining
complete control over operations once the
political decision to deploy troops or use force
has been made. However, many operational
decisions have political ramifications, and it is
therefore important for the civil leadership to
exercise close scrutiny over actions in the field
in order to ensure that operations are consistent
with the country’s political objectives. The
challenge is to devise systems of accountability
and oversight that incorporate the legitimate
concerns of both the military and civilian
leadership.
The duty to obey… and to disobey: Soldiers are,
of course, required to follow their commanding
officers’ orders, but not when these orders are
unconstitutional and/or illegal, say, from the
standpoint of IHL. While the distinction is widely
recognized, it is often not accepted by states
whose armed forces are not under democratic
control.
Conscription versus all-volunteer army:
Having a conscripted army can ensure that the
population at large is engaged in supporting the
military’s role in national security. However, in
the experience of countries as diverse as Russia
and the United States (where there is no longer
a draft), it has proven nigh impossible to ensure
that all able-bodied men and women fulfil the
service requirement. Volunteer armies tend to
attract more motivated personnel and offer
greater training opportunities, therefore
contributing to both higher levels of
professionalism and reduced costs. A professional
soldier may cost more to train and equip,
but he or she also tends to be more skilled.
The main drawback with the volunteer army
model is that professional soldiers may become
progressively more remote from the society they
are supposed to protect. A society whose sons
and daughters are not on the front line is a society
that may be more ready to go to war.
Further Information
Democratic Oversight of The Security Sector:
What Does It Mean? Born, 2002
http://www.dcaf.ch/docs/WP09(E).pdf
Parliamentary Oversight of the Security Sector:
Principles, Mechanisms and Practices, Born, Fluri
and Johnsson, 2003
http://www.dcaf.ch/oversight/
Oversight and Guidance: The Relevance of
Parliamentary Oversight for the Security Sector
and Its Reform, Born, Fluri and Lunn, 2003
www.dcaf.ch/docs/dcaf_doc4.pdf
Categorization of Democratic Civilian Control
(DCC) Lambert, 2005
http://www.dcaf.ch/docs/WP164.pdf
Code of Conduct for Armed and Security Forces
in West Africa
http://www.dcaf.ch/code_conduct-armed-forces-
west-africa/_index.cfm

THE DCAF BACKGROUNDER SERIES
on Security Sector Governance and Reform
DCAF Backgrounders provide concise introductions to contemporary issues in security sector governance and reform. The series
is designed for the use of practitioners and policymakers. Your feedback is encouraged. Please send comments and suggestions to
backgrounders@dcaf.ch
David Law is the editor of the Backgrounder series. The material for this backgrounder was generated by Jamina Glisic and Alexandre
Lambert. Oksana Myshlovska and Jamie Stocker provided additional input and editorial assistance. Katie Meline and Gabriel Real de Azua
also assisted with the preparation of the final draft of this Backgrounder.
The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) promotes good governance and reform of the
security sector. The Centre conducts research on good practices, encourages the development of appropriate norms
at the national and international levels, makes policy recommendations and provides in-country advice and assistance
programmes. DCAF’s partners include governments, parliaments, civil society, international organisations and the range
of security sector actors such as police, judiciary, intelligence agencies, border security services and the military.
Visit us at www.dcaf.ch
D CA F
• Child Soldiers
• Contemporary Challenges for the
Intelligence Community
• Defence Attachés
• Democratic Control of Armed Forces
• Intelligence Services
• Military Ombudsman
• Multiethnic Armed Forces
• National Security Policy
• Parliamentary Committees on Defence
and Security
Available Backgrounders
• Parliamentary Oversight of Intelligence
Services
• Parliament’s Role in Defence
Budgeting
• Parliaments ’s Role in Defence
Procurement
• Private Military Companies
• Sending Troops Abroad
• States of Emergency
• Trafficking in Human Beings
• Vetting for the Security Sector
www.dcaf.ch/backgrounders

1/14/2018 Democracy - Wikipedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy 1/37
Democracy
Democracy (Greek: δημοκρατία dēmokratía, literally "rule of the people"), in modern usage, is a
system of government in which the citizens exercise power directly or elect representatives from
among themselves to form a governing body, such as a parliament.[2] Democracy is sometimes
referred to as "rule of the majority".[3] Democracy is a system of processing conflicts in which
outcomes depend on what participants do, but no single force controls what occurs and its
outcomes.
The uncertainty of outcomes is inherent in democracy, which makes all forces struggle repeatedly
for the realization of their interests, being the devolution of power from a group of people to a set of
rules.[4] Western democracy, as distinct from that which existed in pre-modern societies, is
generally considered to have originated in city states such as Classical Athens and the Roman
Republic, where various schemes and degrees of enfranchisement of the free male population were
observed before the form disappeared in the West at the beginning of late antiquity. The English
word dates to the 16th century, from the older Middle French and Middle Latin equivalents.
According to political scientist Larry Diamond, democracy consists of four key elements: (a) A
political system for choosing and replacing the government through free and fair elections; (b) The
active participation of the people, as citizens, in politics and civic life; (c) Protection of the human
rights of all citizens, and (d) A rule of law, in which the laws and procedures apply equally to all
citizens.[5]
The term appeared in the 5th century BC, to denote the political systems then existing in Greek city-
states, notably Athens, to mean "rule of the people", in contrast to aristocracy (ἀριστοκρατία,
aristokratía), meaning "rule of an elite". While theoretically these definitions are in opposition, in
practice the distinction has been blurred historically.[6] The political system of Classical Athens, for
example, granted democratic citizenship to free men and excluded slaves and women from political
participation. In 1906, Finland became the first government to herald a more inclusive democracy at
the national level. In virtually all democratic governments throughout ancient and modern history,
democratic citizenship consisted of an elite class until full enfranchisement was won for all adult
citizens in most modern democracies through the suffrage movements of the 19th and 20th centuries.
Most democratic (closest to 10)
Least democratic (closest to 0)
Democracy's de facto status in the world as of 2016,
according to Democracy Index by The Economist.[1]
Democracy's de jure status in the world as of 2008.
Only Saudi Arabia, Myanmar, Brunei and the Vatican
officially admit to be undemocratic.

Democracy contrasts with forms of government where power is either held by an individual, as in an absolute
monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy. Nevertheless, these
oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy,[7] are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have
mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Karl Popper defined democracy in contrast to
dictatorship or tyranny, thus focusing on opportunities for the people to control their leaders and to oust them
without the need for a revolution.[8]
Characteristics
History
Ancient origins
Middle Ages
Modern era
Early modern period
18th and 19th centuries
20th and 21st centuries
Measurement of democracy
Types of governmental democracies
Basic forms
Direct
Representative
Hybrid or semi-direct
Variants
Constitutional monarchy
Republic
Liberal democracy
Socialist
Anarchist
A person casts vote in the second round of
the 2007 French presidential election.
Contents

Sortition
Consociational
Consensus democracy
Supranational
Inclusive
Participatory politics
Cosmopolitan
Creative democracy
Guided democracy
Non-governmental democracy
Theory
Aristotle
Early Republican theory
Rationale
Aggregative
Deliberative
Radical
Criticism
Inefficiencies
Popular rule as a façade
Mob rule
Political instability
Fraudulent elections
Opposition
Development
See also
References

Further reading
External links
No consensus exists on how to define democracy, but legal equality, political freedom and rule of law have been identified as important characteristics.[9][10] These
principles are reflected in all eligible citizens being equal before the law and having equal access to legislative processes. For example, in a representative
democracy, every vote has equal weight, no unreasonable restrictions can apply to anyone seeking to become a representative, and the freedom of its eligible
citizens is secured by legitimised rights and liberties which are typically protected by a constitution.[11][12] Other uses of "democracy" include that of direct
democracy.
One theory holds that democracy requires three fundamental principles: (1) upward control, i.e. sovereignty residing at the lowest levels of authority, (2) political
equality, and (3) social norms by which individuals and institutions only consider acceptable acts that reflect the first two principles of upward control and political
equality.[13]
The term "democracy" is sometimes used as shorthand for liberal democracy, which is a variant of representative democracy that may include elements such as
political pluralism; equality before the law; the right to petition elected officials for redress of grievances; due process; civil liberties; human rights; and elements of
civil society outside the government. Roger Scruton argues that democracy alone cannot provide personal and political freedom unless the institutions of civil
society are also present.[14]
In some countries, notably in the United Kingdom which originated the Westminster system, the dominant principle is that of parliamentary sovereignty, while
maintaining judicial independence.[15][16] In the United States, separation of powers is often cited as a central attribute. In India, parliamentary sovereignty is
subject to the Constitution of India which includes judicial review.[17] Though the term "democracy" is typically used in the context of a political state, the
principles also are applicable to private organisations.
Majority rule is often listed as a characteristic of democracy. Hence, democracy allows for political minorities to be oppressed by the "tyranny of the majority" in
the absence of legal protections of individual or group rights. An essential part of an "ideal" representative democracy is competitive elections that are substantively
and procedurally "fair," i.e., just and equitable. In some countries, freedom of political expression, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and internet democracy
are considered important to ensure that voters are well informed, enabling them to vote according to their own interests.[18][19]
It has also been suggested that a basic feature of democracy is the capacity of all voters to participate freely and fully in the life of their society.[20] With its
emphasis on notions of social contract and the collective will of all the voters, democracy can also be characterised as a form of political collectivism because it is
defined as a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in lawmaking.[21]
While representative democracy is sometimes equated with the republican form of government, the term "republic" classically has encompassed both democracies
and aristocracies.[22][23] Many democracies are constitutional monarchies, such as the United Kingdom.
Characteristics

The term "democracy" first appeared in ancient Greek political and philosophical thought in the city-state of Athens during
classical antiquity.[24][25] The word comes from demos, "common people" and kratos, strength.[26] Led by Cleisthenes,
Athenians established what is generally held as the first democracy in 508–507 BC. Cleisthenes is referred to as "the father of
Athenian democracy."[27]
Athenian democracy took the form of a direct democracy, and it had two distinguishing features: the random selection of
ordinary citizens to fill the few existing government administrative and judicial offices,[28] and a legislative assembly consisting
of all Athenian citizens.[29] All eligible citizens were allowed to speak and vote in the assembly, which set the laws of the city
state. However, Athenian citizenship excluded women, slaves, foreigners (μέτοικοι / métoikoi), non-landowners, and men
under 20 years of age. The exclusion of large parts of the population from the citizen body is closely related to the ancient
understanding of citizenship. In most of antiquity the benefit of citizenship was tied to the obligation to fight war
campaigns.[30]
Athenian democracy was not only direct in the sense that decisions were made by the assembled people, but also the most
direct in the sense that the people through the assembly, boule and courts of law controlled the entire political process and a large proportion of citizens were
involved constantly in the public business.[31] Even though the rights of the individual were not secured by the Athenian constitution in the modern sense (the
ancient Greeks had no word for "rights"[32]), the Athenians enjoyed their liberties not in opposition to the government but by living in a city that was not subject to
another power and by not being subjects themselves to the rule of another person.[33]
Range voting appeared in Sparta as early as 700 BC. The Apella was an assembly of the people, held once a month, in which every male citizen of at least 30 years
of age could participate. In the Apella, Spartans elected leaders and cast votes by range voting and shouting. Aristotle called this "childish", as compared with the
stone voting ballots used by the Athenians. Sparta adopted it because of its simplicity, and to prevent any bias voting, buying, or cheating that was predominant in
the early democratic elections.[34][35]
Even though the Roman Republic contributed significantly to many aspects of democracy, only a minority of Romans were citizens with votes in elections for
representatives. The votes of the powerful were given more weight through a system of gerrymandering, so most high officials, including members of the Senate,
came from a few wealthy and noble families.[36] In addition, the Roman Republic was the first government in the western world to have a Republic as a nation-
state, although it didn't have much of a democracy. The Romans invented the concept of classics and many works from Ancient Greece were preserved.[37]
Additionally, the Roman model of governance inspired many political thinkers over the centuries,[38] and today's modern representative democracies imitate more
the Roman than the Greek models because it was a state in which supreme power was held by the people and their elected representatives, and which had an
History
Cleisthenes, "father of
Athenian democracy",
modern bust
Ancient origins

elected or nominated leader.[39] Other cultures, such as the Iroquois Nation in the Americas between around 1450 and 1600 AD also developed a form of
democratic society before they came in contact with the Europeans. This indicates that forms of democracy may have been invented in other societies around the
world.
During the Middle Ages, there were various systems involving elections or assemblies, although often only involving a small part of the population. These included:
the Frostating, Gulating, Eidsivating and Borgarting in Norway,
the Althing in Iceland,
the Løgting in the Faeroe Islands,
Scandinavian Things,
the election of Uthman in the Rashidun Caliphate,
the South Indian Kingdom of the Chola in the state of Tamil Nadu in the Indian Subcontinent had an electoral system at 920 A.D., about 1100 years ago,[40]
Carantania, old Slavic/Slovenian principality, the Ducal Inauguration from 7th to 15th century,
the upper-caste election of the Gopala in the Bengal region of the Indian Subcontinent,
the Holy Roman Empire's Hoftag and Imperial Diets (mostly Nobles and Clergy),
Frisia in the 10th–15th Century (Weight of vote based on landownership)
the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth (10% of population),
certain medieval Italian city-states such as Venice, Genoa, Florence, Pisa, Lucca, Amalfi, Siena and San Marino
the Cortes of León,
the tuatha system in early medieval Ireland,
the Veche in Novgorod and Pskov Republics of medieval Russia,
The States in Tirol and Switzerland,
the autonomous merchant city of Sakai in the 16th century in Japan,
Volta-Nigeric societies such as Igbo.
the Mekhk-Khel system of the Nakh peoples of the North Caucasus, by which representatives to the Council of Elders for each teip (clan) were popularly
elected by that teip's members.
The 10th Sikh Guru Gobind Singh ji (Nanak X) established the world's first Sikh democratic republic state ending the aristocracy on day of 1st Vasakh 1699
and Gurbani as sole constitution of this Sikh republic on the Indian subcontinent.
Middle Ages

Most regions in medieval Europe were ruled by clergy or feudal lords.
The Kouroukan Fouga divided the Mali Empire into ruling clans (lineages) that were represented at a great assembly called the Gbara. However, the charter made
Mali more similar to a constitutional monarchy than a democratic republic. A little closer to modern democracy were the Cossack republics of Ukraine in the 16th
and 17th centuries: Cossack Hetmanate and Zaporizhian Sich. The highest post – the Hetman – was elected by the representatives from the country's districts.
The Parliament of England had its roots in the restrictions on the power of kings written into Magna Carta
(1215), which explicitly protected certain rights of the King's subjects and implicitly supported what
became the English writ of habeas corpus, safeguarding individual freedom against unlawful imprisonment
with right to appeal.[41][42] The first representative national assembly in England was Simon de
Montfort's Parliament in 1265.[43][44] The emergence of petitioning is some of the earliest evidence of
parliament being used as a forum to address the general grievances of ordinary people. However, the
power to call parliament remained at the pleasure of the monarch.[45]
In 17th century England, there was renewed interest in Magna Carta.[46] The Parliament of England
passed the Petition of Right in 1628 which established certain liberties for subjects. The English Civil War (1642–1651) was fought between the King and an
oligarchic but elected Parliament,[47][48] during which the idea of a political party took form with groups debating rights to political representation during the
Putney Debates of 1647.[49] Subsequently, the Protectorate (1653-59) and the English Restoration (1660) restored more autocratic rule, although Parliament
passed the Habeas Corpus Act in 1679 which strengthened the convention that forbade detention lacking sufficient cause or evidence. After the Glorious Revolution
of 1688, the Bill of Rights was enacted in 1689 which codified certain rights and liberties, and is still in effect. The Bill set out the requirement for regular elections,
rules for freedom of speech in Parliament and limited the power of the monarch, ensuring that, unlike much of Europe at the time, royal absolutism would not
prevail.[50][51]
In North America, representative government began in Jamestown, Virginia, with the election of the House of Burgesses (forerunner of the Virginia General
Assembly) in 1619. English Puritans who migrated from 1620 established colonies in New England whose local governance was democratic and which contributed
to the democratic development of the United States;[52] although these local assemblies had some small amounts of devolved power, the ultimate authority was
held by the Crown and the English Parliament. The Puritans (Pilgrim Fathers), Baptists, and Quakers who founded these colonies applied the democratic
organisation of their congregations also to the administration of their communities in worldly matters.[53][54][55]
Magna Carta, 1215, England
Modern era
Early modern period
18th and 19th centuries

The first Parliament of Great Britain was established in 1707, after the merger of the Kingdom of England and the
Kingdom of Scotland under the Acts of Union. Although the monarch increasingly became a figurehead,[56] only a
small minority actually had a voice; Parliament was elected by only a few percent of the population (less than 3% as
late as 1780).[57] During the Age of Liberty in Sweden (1718–1772), civil rights were expanded and power shifted from
the monarch to parliament. The taxed peasantry was represented in parliament, although with little influence, but
commoners without taxed property had no suffrage.
The creation of the short-lived Corsican Republic in 1755 marked the first nation in modern history to adopt a
democratic constitution (all men and women above age of 25 could vote[58]). This Corsican Constitution was the first
based on Enlightenment principles and included female suffrage, something that was not granted in most other
democracies until the 20th century.
In the American colonial period before 1776, and for some time after, often only adult white male property owners
could vote; enslaved Africans, most free black people and most women were not extended the franchise.[59] On the
American frontier, democracy became a way of life, with more widespread social, economic and political equality.[60]
Although not described as a democracy by the founding fathers,[61] they shared a determination to root the American experiment in the principles of natural
freedom and equality.[62]
The American Revolution led to the adoption of the United States Constitution in 1787, the oldest surviving, still active, governmental codified constitution. The
Constitution provided for an elected government and protected civil rights and liberties for some, but did not end slavery nor extend voting rights in the United
States beyond white male property owners (about 6% of the population).[63] The Bill of Rights in 1791 set limits on government power to protect personal freedoms
but had little impact on judgements by the courts for the first 130 years after ratification.[64]
In 1789, Revolutionary France adopted the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and, although short-lived, the National Convention was elected by
all men in 1792.[66] However, in the early 19th century, little of democracy – as theory, practice, or even as word – remained in the North Atlantic world.[67]
During this period, slavery remained a social and economic institution in places around the world. This was particularly the case in the United States, and
especially in the last fifteen slave states that kept slavery legal in the American South until the Civil War. A variety of organisations were established advocating the
movement of black people from the United States to locations where they would enjoy greater freedom and equality.
The United Kingdom's Slave Trade Act 1807 banned the trade across the British Empire, which was enforced internationally by the Royal Navy under treaties
Britain negotiated with other nations.[68] As the voting franchise in the U.K. was increased, it also was made more uniform in a series of reforms beginning with
the Reform Act 1832. In 1833, the United Kingdom passed the Slavery Abolition Act which took effect across the British Empire.
Universal male suffrage was established in France in March 1848 in the wake of the French Revolution of 1848.[69] In 1848, several revolutions broke out in
Europe as rulers were confronted with popular demands for liberal constitutions and more democratic government.[70]
The establishment of universal male
suffrage in France in 1848 was an
important milestone in the history of
democracy.

In the 1860 United States Census, the slave population in the United States had grown to four million,[71] and in
Reconstruction after the Civil War (late 1860s), the newly freed slaves became citizens with a nominal right to vote
for men. Full enfranchisement of citizens was not secured until after the Civil Rights Movement gained passage by
the United States Congress of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.[72][73]
20th-century transitions to liberal democracy have come in successive "waves of democracy", variously resulting
from wars, revolutions, decolonisation, and religious and economic circumstances.[74] Global waves of "democratic
regression" reversing democratization, have also occurred in the 1920s and 30s, in the 1960s and 1970s, and in the
2010s.[75][76]
World War I and the dissolution of the Ottoman and Austro-Hungarian empires resulted in the creation of new
nation-states from Europe, most of them at least nominally democratic.
In the 1920s democracy flourished and women's suffrage advanced, but the Great Depression brought
disenchantment and most of the countries of Europe, Latin America, and Asia turned to strong-man rule or
dictatorships. Fascism and dictatorships flourished in Nazi Germany, Italy, Spain and Portugal, as well as non-
democratic governments in the Baltics, the Balkans, Brazil, Cuba, China, and Japan, among others.[77]
World War II brought a definitive reversal of this trend in western Europe. The democratisation of the American,
British, and French sectors of occupied Germany (disputed[78]), Austria, Italy, and the occupied Japan served as a
model for the later theory of government change. However, most of Eastern Europe, including the Soviet sector of
Germany fell into the non-democratic Soviet bloc.
The war was followed by decolonisation, and again most of the new independent states had nominally democratic
constitutions. India emerged as the world's largest democracy and continues to be so.[79] Countries that were once
part of the British Empire often adopted the British Westminster system.[80][81]
By 1960, the vast majority of country-states were nominally democracies, although most of the world's populations lived in nations that experienced sham
elections, and other forms of subterfuge (particularly in "Communist" nations and the former colonies.)
A subsequent wave of democratisation brought substantial gains toward true liberal democracy for many nations. Spain, Portugal (1974), and several of the
military dictatorships in South America returned to civilian rule in the late 1970s and early 1980s (Argentina in 1983, Bolivia, Uruguay in 1984, Brazil in 1985, and
Chile in the early 1990s). This was followed by nations in East and South Asia by the mid-to-late 1980s.
Statue of Athena, the patron goddess
of Athens, in front of the Austrian
Parliament Building. Athena has been
used as an international symbol of
freedom and democracy since at least
the late eighteenth century.[65]
20th and 21st centuries

Economic malaise in the 1980s, along with resentment of Soviet oppression, contributed to the collapse of the Soviet
Union, the associated end of the Cold War, and the democratisation and liberalisation of the former Eastern bloc
countries. The most successful of the new democracies were those geographically and culturally closest to western
Europe, and they are now members or candidate members of the European Union.
The liberal trend spread to some nations in Africa in the 1990s, most prominently in South Africa. Some recent
examples of attempts of liberalisation include the Indonesian Revolution of 1998, the Bulldozer Revolution in
Yugoslavia, the Rose Revolution in Georgia, the Orange Revolution in Ukraine, the Cedar Revolution in Lebanon, the
Tulip Revolution in Kyrgyzstan, and the Jasmine Revolution in Tunisia.
According to Freedom House, in 2007 there were 123 electoral democracies (up from 40 in 1972).[82] According to
World Forum on Democracy, electoral democracies now represent 120 of the 192 existing countries and constitute
58.2 percent of the world's population. At the same time liberal democracies i.e. countries Freedom House regards as
free and respectful of basic human rights and the rule of law are 85 in number and represent 38 percent of the global population.[83]
In 2007 the United Nations declared September 15 the International Day of Democracy.[84]
According to Freedom House, starting in 2005, there have been eleven consecutive years in which declines in political rights and civil liberties throughout the
world have outnumbered improvements,[85] as populist and nationalist political forces have gained ground everywhere from Poland (under the Law and Justice
Party) to the Philippines (under Rodrigo Duterte).[85][75]
Several freedom indices are published by several organisations according to their own various definitions of the term:
Freedom in the World published each year since 1972 by the U.S.-based Freedom House ranks countries by political rights and civil liberties that are derived
in large measure from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Countries are assessed as free, partly free, or unfree.[87]
Worldwide Press Freedom Index is published each year since 2002 (except that 2011 was combined with 2012) by France-based Reporters Without Borders.
Countries are assessed as having a good situation, a satisfactory situation, noticeable problems, a difficult situation, or a very serious situation.[88]
The Index of Freedom in the World is an index measuring classical civil liberties published by Canada's Fraser Institute, Germany's Liberales Institute, and
the U.S. Cato Institute.[89] It is not currently included in the table below.
The CIRI Human Rights Data Project measures a range of human, civil, women's and workers rights.[90] It is now hosted by the University of Connecticut. It
was created in 1994.[91] In its 2011 report, the U.S. was ranked 38th in overall human rights.[92]
The number of nations 1800–2003
scoring 8 or higher on Polity IV
scale, another widely used measure
of democracy
Measurement of democracy

The Democracy Index, published by the U.K.-based Economist Intelligence Unit, is an
assessment of countries' democracy. Countries are rated to be either Full Democracies,
Flawed Democracies, Hybrid Regimes, or Authoritarian regimes. Full democracies, flawed
democracies, and hybrid regimes are considered to be democracies, and the authoritarian
nations are considered to be dictatorial. The index is based on 60 indicators grouped in five
different categories.[93]
The U.S.-based Polity data series is a widely used data series in political science research. It
contains coded annual information on regime authority characteristics and transitions for all
independent states with greater than 500,000 total population and covers the years 1800–
2006. Polity's conclusions about a state's level of democracy are based on an evaluation of
that state's elections for competitiveness, openness and level of participation. Data from this
series is not currently included in the table below. The Polity work is sponsored by the Political
Instability Task Force (PITF) which is funded by the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency.
However, the views expressed in the reports are the authors' alone and do not represent the
views of the US Government.
MaxRange, a dataset defining level of democracy and institutional structure(regime-type) on a
100-graded scale where every value represents a unique regime type. Values are sorted from
1–100 based on level of democracy and political accountability. MaxRange defines the value
corresponding to all states and every month from 1789 to 2015 and updating. MaxRange is
created and developed by Max Range, and is now associated with the university of Halmstad,
Sweden.[94]
Democracy has taken a number of forms, both in theory and practice. Some varieties of democracy
provide better representation and more freedom for their citizens than others.[95][96] However, if
any democracy is not structured so as to prohibit the government from excluding the people from the legislative process, or any branch of government from
altering the separation of powers in its own favour, then a branch of the system can accumulate too much power and destroy the democracy.[97][98][99]
Country ratings from the US based Freedom House's
Freedom in the World 2017 survey, concerning the
state of world freedom in 2016[86]
Free (86) Partly Free (59) Not Free (50)
Countries designated "electoral democracies" in
Freedom House's 2017 survey "Freedom in the World",
covering the year 2016[87]Types of governmental democracies

World's states coloured by form of government1
Full presidential republics2 Semi-presidential republics2
Parliamentary republics with an executive
president dependent on the legislature
Parliamentary republics2
Parliamentary constitutional monarchies Constitutional monarchies which have a
separate head of government but where royalty
still hold significant executive and/or legislative
power
Absolute monarchies One-party states
Countries where constitutional provisions for
government have been suspended (e.g. military
dictatorships)
Countries which do not fit any of the above
systems

1This map was compiled according to the Wikipedia list of countries by system of government. See there for sources. 2Several
states constitutionally deemed to be multiparty republics are broadly described by outsiders as authoritarian states. This map
presents only the de jure form of government, and not the de facto degree of democracy.
The following kinds of democracy are not exclusive of one another: many specify details of aspects that are independent of one another and can co-exist in a single
system.
Several variants of democracy exist, but there are two basic forms, both of which concern how the whole body of all eligible citizens executes its will. One form of
democracy is direct democracy, in which all eligible citizens have active participation in the political decision making, for example voting on policy initiatives
directly.[100] In most modern democracies, the whole body of eligible citizens remain the sovereign power but political power is exercised indirectly through
elected representatives; this is called a representative democracy.
Direct democracy is a political system where the citizens participate in the decision-making personally, contrary to
relying on intermediaries or representatives. The use of a lot system, a characteristic of Athenian democracy, is unique
to direct democracies. In this system, important governmental and administrative tasks are performed by citizens
picked from a lottery.[101] A direct democracy gives the voting population the power to:
1. Change constitutional laws,
2. Put forth initiatives, referendums and suggestions for laws,
3. Give binding orders to elective officials, such as revoking them before the end of their elected term, or initiating
a lawsuit for breaking a campaign promise.
Within modern-day representative governments, certain electoral tools like referendums, citizens' initiatives and recall
elections are referred to as forms of direct democracy.[102] Direct democracy as a government system currently exists
in the Swiss cantons of Appenzell Innerrhoden and Glarus,[103] and kurdish cantons of Rojava.[104]
Representative democracy involves the election of government officials by the people being represented. If the head of state is also democratically elected then it is
called a democratic republic.[105] The most common mechanisms involve election of the candidate with a majority or a plurality of the votes. Most western
countries have representative systems.[103]
Basic forms
Direct
A Landsgemeinde (in 2009) of the
Canton of Glarus, an example of
direct democracy in Switzerland
Representative

Representatives may be elected or become diplomatic representatives by a particular district (or constituency), or
represent the entire electorate through proportional systems, with some using a combination of the two. Some
representative democracies also incorporate elements of direct democracy, such as referendums. A characteristic of
representative democracy is that while the representatives are elected by the people to act in the people's interest, they
retain the freedom to exercise their own judgement as how best to do so. Such reasons have driven criticism upon
representative democracy,[106][107] pointing out the contradictions of representation mechanisms with
democracy[108][109]
Parliamentary democracy is a representative democracy where government is appointed by, or can be dismissed by,
representatives as opposed to a "presidential rule" wherein the president is both head of state and the head of
government and is elected by the voters. Under a parliamentary democracy, government is exercised by delegation to
an executive ministry and subject to ongoing review, checks and balances by the legislative parliament elected by the
people.[110][111][112][113]
Parliamentary systems have the right to dismiss a Prime Minister at any point in time that they feel he or she is not
doing their job to the expectations of the legislature. This is done through a Vote of No Confidence where the legislature decides whether or not to remove the
Prime Minister from office by a majority support for his or her dismissal.[114] In some countries, the Prime Minister can also call an election whenever he or she so
chooses, and typically the Prime Minister will hold an election when he or she knows that they are in good favour with the public as to get re-elected. In other
parliamentary democracies extra elections are virtually never held, a minority government being preferred until the next ordinary elections. An important feature
of the parliamentary democracy is the concept of the "loyal opposition". The essence of the concept is that the second largest political party (or coalition) opposes
the governing party (or coalition), while still remaining loyal to the state and its democratic principles.
Presidential Democracy is a system where the public elects the president through free and fair elections. The president serves as both the head of state and head of
government controlling most of the executive powers. The president serves for a specific term and cannot exceed that amount of time. Elections typically have a
fixed date and aren't easily changed. The president has direct control over the cabinet, specifically appointing the cabinet members.[114]
The president cannot be easily removed from office by the legislature, but he or she cannot remove members of the legislative branch any more easily. This
provides some measure of separation of powers. In consequence however, the president and the legislature may end up in the control of separate parties, allowing
one to block the other and thereby interfere with the orderly operation of the state. This may be the reason why presidential democracy is not very common outside
the Americas, Africa, and Central and Southeast Asia.[114]
A semi-presidential system is a system of democracy in which the government includes both a prime minister and a president. The particular powers held by the
prime minister and president vary by country.[114]
In Switzerland, without needing to
register, every citizen receives ballot
papers and information brochures
for each vote (and can send it back
by post). Switzerland has a direct
democracy system and votes are
organised about four times a year.
Parliamentary
Presidential

Some modern democracies that are predominantly representative in nature also heavily rely upon forms of political action that are directly democratic. These
democracies, which combine elements of representative democracy and direct democracy, are termed hybrid democracies,[115] semi-direct democracies or
participatory democracies. Examples include Switzerland and some U.S. states, where frequent use is made of referendums and initiatives.
The Swiss confederation is a semi-direct democracy.[103] At the federal level, citizens can propose changes to the constitution (federal popular initiative) or ask for
a referendum to be held on any law voted by the parliament.[103] Between January 1995 and June 2005, Swiss citizens voted 31 times, to answer 103 questions
(during the same period, French citizens participated in only two referendums).[103] Although in the past 120 years less than 250 initiatives have been put to
referendum. The populace has been conservative, approving only about 10% of the initiatives put before them; in addition, they have often opted for a version of
the initiative rewritten by government.
In the United States, no mechanisms of direct democracy exists at the federal level, but over half of the states and many localities provide for citizen-sponsored
ballot initiatives (also called "ballot measures", "ballot questions" or "propositions"), and the vast majority of states allow for referendums. Examples include the
extensive use of referendums in the US state of California, which is a state that has more than 20 million voters.[116]
In New England, Town meetings are often used, especially in rural areas, to manage local government. This creates a hybrid form of government, with a local direct
democracy and a state government which is representative. For example, most Vermont towns hold annual town meetings in March in which town officers are
elected, budgets for the town and schools are voted on, and citizens have the opportunity to speak and be heard on political matters.[117]
Many countries such as the United Kingdom, Spain, the Netherlands, Belgium, Scandinavian countries, Thailand, Japan and Bhutan turned powerful monarchs
into constitutional monarchs with limited or, often gradually, merely symbolic roles. For example, in the predecessor states to the United Kingdom, constitutional
monarchy began to emerge and has continued uninterrupted since the Glorious Revolution of 1688 and passage of the Bill of Rights 1689.[15][50]
In other countries, the monarchy was abolished along with the aristocratic system (as in France, China, Russia, Germany, Austria, Hungary, Italy, Greece and
Egypt). An elected president, with or without significant powers, became the head of state in these countries.
Elite upper houses of legislatures, which often had lifetime or hereditary tenure, were common in many nations. Over time, these either had their powers limited
(as with the British House of Lords) or else became elective and remained powerful (as with the Australian Senate).
Hybrid or semi-direct
Variants
Constitutional monarchy
Republic

The term republic has many different meanings, but today often refers to a representative democracy with an elected head of
state, such as a president, serving for a limited term, in contrast to states with a hereditary monarch as a head of state, even if
these states also are representative democracies with an elected or appointed head of government such as a prime
minister.[118]
The Founding Fathers of the United States rarely praised and often criticised democracy, which in their time tended to
specifically mean direct democracy, often without the protection of a constitution enshrining basic rights; James Madison
argued, especially in The Federalist No. 10, that what distinguished a democracy from a republic was that the former became
weaker as it got larger and suffered more violently from the effects of faction, whereas a republic could get stronger as it got
larger and combats faction by its very structure.
What was critical to American values, John Adams insisted,[119] was that the government be "bound by fixed laws, which the
people have a voice in making, and a right to defend." As Benjamin Franklin was exiting after writing the U.S. constitution, a
woman asked him "Well, Doctor, what have we got—a republic or a monarchy?". He replied "A republic—if you can keep
it."[120]
A liberal democracy is a representative democracy in which the ability of the elected representatives to exercise decision-making power is subject to the rule of law,
and moderated by a constitution or laws that emphasise the protection of the rights and freedoms of individuals, and which places constraints on the leaders and
on the extent to which the will of the majority can be exercised against the rights of minorities (see civil liberties).
In a liberal democracy, it is possible for some large-scale decisions to emerge from the many individual decisions that citizens are free to make. In other words,
citizens can "vote with their feet" or "vote with their dollars", resulting in significant informal government-by-the-masses that exercises many "powers" associated
with formal government elsewhere.
Socialist thought has several different views on democracy. Social democracy, democratic socialism, and the dictatorship of the proletariat (usually exercised
through Soviet democracy) are some examples. Many democratic socialists and social democrats believe in a form of participatory, industrial, economic and/or
workplace democracy combined with a representative democracy.
Within Marxist orthodoxy there is a hostility to what is commonly called "liberal democracy", which they simply refer to as parliamentary democracy because of its
often centralised nature. Because of their desire to eliminate the political elitism they see in capitalism, Marxists, Leninists and Trotskyists believe in direct
democracy implemented through a system of communes (which are sometimes called soviets). This system ultimately manifests itself as council democracy and
begins with workplace democracy. (See Democracy in Marxism.)
Queen Elizabeth II, a
constitutional monarch
Liberal democracy
Socialist

CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY AND MYANMAR ROLE

CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY AND MYANMAR ROLE

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY AND MYANMAR ROLE

Similar to CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY AND MYANMAR ROLE (20)

More from MYO AUNG Myanmar

More from MYO AUNG Myanmar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

CIVILIAN CONTROL OF THE MILITARY AND MYANMAR ROLE