MILITARY ENGAGEMENT

Influencing Armed Forces Worldwide to Support Democratic Transitions

By DENNIS BLAIR

Brookings Institution Press

Copyright © 2013 Council for a Community of Democracies
All rights reserved.
ISBN: 978-0-8157-2478-0

Contents

1 Introduction Dennis Blair………………………………………..12 Characteristics of and Influences on the Armed Forces during Democratic
Transition in Latin America Juan Emilio Cheyre……………………….113 Argentina: A Transition without Conditions Julio Hang……………….484 Chile: Transition toward the Subordination of the Military Juan C.
Salgado Brocal…………………………………………………….675 From War to Peace in El Salvador: The Military Transition Humberto
Corado Figueroa……………………………………………………826 Military and Democratic Development in Asia: A Complex Narrative
Muthiah Alagappa…………………………………………………..937 The Military and Democratic Reform in Indonesia Rizal Sukma………….1138 The Military in Democratic Development: A Philippine Case Study
Raymundo B. Ferrer and Carolina G. Hernandez………………………….1399 The Armed Forces and Democratic Development in Thailand Suchit
Bunbongkarn……………………………………………………….16510 Sub-Saharan Africa: Decolonization to Multiparty Democracy and the
Challenges of Transforming Military Institutions Martin Rupiya…………18811 Civil-Military Relations and Democratic Consolidation in Nigeria:
Issues and Challenges Ecoma Alaga and Richard Akum……………………21512 Civil-Military Relations in Senegal Biram Diop…………………….23613 South Africa: Transition of the Armed Forces from Apartheid to
Multiparty Democracy Martin Rupiya………………………………….25714 Democracy and Armed Forces in Europe and Eurasia Matthew Rhodes……..27415 The Role of Foreign Advisers in the Process of Hungarian Defense Reform
Vilmos Hamikus……………………………………………………30016 The Military Transition: Democratic Reform of the Spanish Armed Forces
Narcís Serra and Marton Harsanyi…………………………………….31117 The Middle East and North Africa Tannous Mouawad…………………..32518 Egypt: A Case Study Raymond Maalouf………………………………35119 Lebanon and Syria: A Case Study Tannous Mouawad……………………363About the Authors………………………………………………….375Index…………………………………………………………….379

CHAPTER 1

Introduction

Dennis Blair

The second volume of Military Engagement relates the stories ofhow democratic civil-military relations developed in five worldregions and fourteen individual countries. This introduction providessome background on those who authored these stories anddescribes the patterns observed and the lessons that can be drawnfrom them.

The Authors

The regional summaries were written by a team of coauthors,almost all having both practical experience in armed forces ordefense ministries of their countries and subsequent careers withsecurity think tanks. They also contributed ideas and criticisms ofthe analysis and recommendations in the companion volume. JuanEmilio Cheyre, while chief of staff of the Chilean army, took thefinal steps to bring his service out of the Pinochet era. MatthewRhodes is a professor at the Marshall Center in Germany, an institutionat the center of military-military relations among countriesaround the world. Istvan Gyarmati, who participated in the earlybrainstorming sessions for the handbook, was deputy defenseminister of Hungary during the Hungarian armed forces’ transitionfrom its Warsaw Pact organization to meet NATO standards.Muthiah Alagappa, a general in the Malaysian Army, has becomethe foremost scholar of Asian civil-military relations subsequent tohis retirement. Tannous Mouawad served as Lebanon’s military attaché to theUnited States and the chief of Lebanon’s military intelligence service. MartinRupiya was an officer in the Zimbabwean National Army and now heads asecurity affairs think tank in South Africa

Each of the regional coauthors recruited additional authors to write the individualcase studies; two of them wrote a case study as well. Many of the casestudy authors have had practical experience in the military role during democratictransition or are scholars in the field. Narcís Serra was minister of defensein Spain following the Franco era and participated personally in many of thedefense reforms discussed in chapter 16. Defense researcher Marton Harsanyiassisted in the writing of this chapter. Carolina Hernandez was a member ofthe Davide Commission in the Philippines that beginning in 1989 investigatedthe series of military coups against democratically elected governments followingthe departure of President Ferdinand Marcos. Julio Hang (Argentina), JuanSalgado (Chile), Humberto Corado Figueroa (El Salvador), Raymundo Ferrer(Philippines), and Biram Diop (Senegal) were all serving officers during many ofthe events they described in their case studies. Raymond Maalouf, who wrotethe case study on Egypt, served in the Lebanese Army and has observed theEgyptian armed forces at close hand. Vilmos Hamikus, author of the case studyon Hungary, is a Hungarian diplomat who participated in the reform events hedescribes. Other case study authors are well known think tank scholars: RizalSukma of Indonesia, Suchit Bunbongkarn of Thailand, and Ecoma Alaga andRichard Akum in West Africa.

The regional summaries and case studies provided rich material both to generateideas about the role of the armed forces in democratic development and totest hypotheses. Many of the authors engaged in lively debates by e-mail; ideaswere proposed, tested, and developed further. It was a diverse and powerfulteam that produced a whole much greater than the sum of its parts.

The Stories

Early in the project, the editor attempted to find a standard format for theregional summaries and the case studies. It quickly became clear that the storiesof regions and countries were so different that uniformity would have beennot only impractical but also would have diminished their value. Democratictransitions in different regions and countries confronted different obstacles anddeveloped a range of approaches to surmount them; they proceeded at varyingspeeds, some taking months and others years; and different leaders had a hugeimpact by either instigating or blocking reform. Only by reading many storiescan one begin to understand the complexity of shifting a country’s armedforces from supporting an authoritarian regime to serving an elected democraticgovernment.

Thus the story of each region and countries therein is unique. However,similarities and common features emerge from the interplay of five main componentsthat determine the course of democratic development in a country:an autocratic or transitioning government; the armed forces, both its leadersand the entire officer corps; other powerful and influential leaders within thecountry including politicians, businessmen, and faction heads; popular opinion;and outside influences. Of these five, the armed forces act in a more consistentmanner across different countries than do the others. While subject to manydifferent internal forces such as their regional or ethnic composition, whichcan give rise to rivalries, they act in a more unified and decisive way than theother elements. As described in volume one, the armed forces have an underlyingethos of defending their country that influences their actions. This ethosmotivates them to defend even repressive governments against enemies fromoutside their borders but also sets limits on the support they will give to dictatorsagainst their own people. Armed forces have a strong sense of institutionalautonomy and tend to resist interference in what they regard as their internalaffairs. Armed forces have a sense of history—actions they take in the presentare shaped by their understanding of what has happened in the past and theirexpectation of how history will judge them in the future. In order to influenceand assist armed forces in repressive regimes to favor democratic development,it is necessary to understand both their own characteristics and their interplaywith the other powerful groups within their country.

Insights

Interesting and important patterns can be discerned across different regions andcountries. They are crucial to understanding and assisting democratic developmentin other countries in future.

Long Marches

The case studies of Nigeria, Thailand, and the Philippines, as well as theaccount of Turkey in the regional chapter on the Middle East and North Africa,provide the long view of the role of powerful armed forces in democratic development.In these cases, democratic development, still not complete in all fourcountries, has proceeded over the course of decades, characterized by stepsforward followed by retreats. Nigeria is now in its fourth republic, with theprior three having ended in military coups. Thailand in 2000 seemed on theroad to a solidly democratic role for its armed forces, but in 2006 militaryleaders deposed a democratically elected prime minister, albeit one who wasabusing his power. The armed forces of the Philippines helped depose thedictator Ferdinand Marcos but then mounted multiple coup attempts againstone of his democratically elected successors and helped bring down another.The Turkish Armed Forces conducted multiple coups against democraticallyelected presidents over many years.

In most of these cases of multiple military interventions, national governmentswere not able to deliver economic development, basic security, and socialorder to the countries they were elected to lead. Military leaders stepped inbecause they believed that their governments were failing in their basic functions.However, in none of these countries did military coup plotters believethat direct military rule or military-supported dictatorship should be permanent.The overall trend has been toward greater democracy, with the armedforces playing less of a high-handed and privileged role in determining the fateof national governments than they had in the past. Another overall trend fromthese countries that have experienced multiple coups has been a gradual reductionover time in the privileged position of the armed forces. Once an elected agovernment comes to power, even though the military services retain immunitiesand privileges, democratic forces come into play that can alter over timethe balance of civil-military relations in favor of democratic political controlof the armed forces. While still capable of removing a government, the Thaiarmed forces of 2012 do not have the power they did in 1957; the Turkisharmy of 2012 is not the all-powerful force of 1980. These examples are relevantto Egypt and Pakistan today, where some elements of democracy coexist withpowerful military services.

Expanding Economies and Maturing Societies

The regional summary of East Asia in chapter 6 describes how, by its verynature, economic and social development after World War II eroded the justificationfor military-supported dictatorship. As Muthiah Alagappa puts it,

Over time, however, sustained economic development strengthened thecapacity of other state institutions, broadened the base of middle andworking classes, and made for a much more complex society. Demandinggreater political participation and government accountability, growingcivil and political societies resisted authoritarian and autocratic rule.Income distribution concerns arising from rapid economic growth butunequal distribution of the benefits of that growth, or in some cases fromeconomic crisis and failure, also undermined the legitimacy of authoritarianand autocratic governments.

One does not have to accept the thesis that the rise of a middle class inevitablycauses democratic development to understand that economic powerengenders a desire for political power. Democratic development has provideda well-trodden path to political power for the newly affluent and disgruntled,from English noblemen forcing the Magna Carta on King John in 1215 to thenational consensus in favor of representative government following the deathof President Francisco Franco in Spain in 1975 (chapter 16) to the pressureon and ultimate removal of President Suharto in Indonesia in 1998 (chapter7). When wealth is concentrated in the hands of oligopolies, a dictator canstrike a bargain with the very rich few to delay more widespread pressurefor reform, but it is becoming more difficult to sustain this arrangement ina world in which telecommunication is spreading knowledge. In the cases ofSouth Korea and Taiwan, the military and business elites came to a collectiverealization that further democratic development was inevitable for their countries.The democratic elections of 1988 in Korea and 1996 in Taiwan did notmean that the armed forces and the industrial magnates renounced all theirprivileges. However, it did give other groups in these countries the means toadvance more representative government and to reduce over time the powerof the military and business elites. These examples have relevance to the currentsituations in Russia and China, in which autocratic governments andoligarchs are facing rising affluence and dissatisfaction among wider groupsof their citizens.

Putting Countries Back Together after Conflict

Two case studies, El Salvador (chapter 5) and South Africa (chapter 13),describe the integration of authoritarian government armed forces with guerrillafighters after years of bitter combat. In El Salvador the fighting had beenclose and brutal, with atrocities committed by each side against the other. Inthe South African case, fighting had been on a smaller scale and most of it inneighboring countries where Umkhonto we Sizwe and African People’s LiberationArmy irregulars had been based, and where the South African DefenseForce had pursued them. In both cases, integration of former enemies was noteasy. Issues of retribution, distribution of command positions, employment forthose discharged from service, and many other problems had to be identifiedand resolved. Many countries still face the challenge of forming true nationalarmies. In Myanmar regional armies still battle central government forces; inLebanon Hezbollah is more powerful than the Lebanese Army. At this writing,fighting still rages in Syria between the government army and rebels. Theexamples of South Africa and El Salvador give hope that national armies canbe created in a democratic transition after the end of civil wars.

Case studies of Argentina (chapter 3) and Chile (chapter 4) tell the storiesof newly democratic countries coming to grips with accountability for brutalactions by combatants on both sides in civil wars under authoritarian regimes.Of the two, Argentina’s process has been far less successful. Despite attemptsto establish even-handed justice, limiting punishment to those who gave illegalorders or who acted brutally themselves, successive Argentine governmentshave pursued those who were political opponents but taken no action againstpolitical allies. In contrast, in Chile the Mesa de Diálogo capped a process thatsatisfied both citizens and the armed forces that the objectives of both justiceand reconciliation had been served.

Accountability has been an issue in other countries as well, from Spain toSierra Leone. It should be reassuring to those soldiers in Bahrain, Iran, Pakistan,and Syria who have not personally committed brutal, unlawful actionsthat they have nothing to fear and the reputation of their services has everythingto gain from an accountability process in a democratic transition.

Good Leaders Make a Difference

Reading many of these stories, one is struck by the impact that individualleaders have. Spain’s transition to democracy from Francoist dictatorshipwould not have been as successful as it was without General Manuel GutiérrezMellado (chapter 16). The events of 2011 in Tunisia might have been differentwith someone other than General Rachid Ammar in command of theTunisian Armed Forces. If General Prabowo Subianto had been chief of theTentara Nasional Indonesia instead of General Wiranto, Indonesia’s transitionto democracy could well have been halted by bloodshed (chapter 7). GeneralJean Alfred Diallo’s leadership was a major factor in establishing Senegal asa democracy with supportive armed forces (chapter 12). Once they becamepresidents of their countries, former generals Kemal Atatürk in Turkey, ChunDoo-hwan in South Korea, Fidel Ramos in the Philippines (chapter 8), andPrem Tinsulanonda in Thailand (chapter 9) all chose to relinquish power todemocratically elected successors. These senior officers are widely respectedfor the correct and in many cases courageous decisions they made that helpedmove their countries along the path to democracy. Undoubtedly, there areofficers in Pakistan, Egypt, Iran, China, and even North Korea who may somedayhave the opportunity to make such decisions and leave a similar legacy.It is vital for leaders from democratic countries to identify such officers, getto know them, and support them in moving their countries onto a peacefuldemocratic path.

Good Laws Make a Difference

Several of the case studies describe in detail the process of establishing a solidlegal framework for civil-military relations after a period of autocratic rule. Thecase study on Spain (chapter 16) describes the series of constitutional provisions,laws, and royal decrees issued after President Franco’s death in 1975 thatgradually established the basis for democratic political control of the formerlyindependent and untouchable armed forces. One important area described indetail in this chapter is the reform of military justice to bring that system intoconformity with the national justice system. The case study of the Philippines(chapter 8) describes the 1987 Constitution that reestablished the oversightrole of the legislature and the Commission on Appointments and created theCommission on Human Rights, all designed to provide impartial oversight ofthe Armed Forces of the Philippines. Other important legal reforms at the timewere the separation of the Philippine Constabulary and the police from thearmed forces. One key shortcoming of the 1987 Constitution was its preservationof the armed forces’ mission of “protecting the people.” This provisionprovided the reason or, more accurately, the pretext for a series of coups duringthe Aquino administration.

It is possible for the laws on a country’s books to be correct but for them tobe disregarded or subverted. The Philippine case study emphasizes that many ofthe bodies established by the 1987 Constitution have yet to achieve full effectiveness.The case of Nigeria (chapter 11) is also instructive. The laws for democraticpolitical control existed from the time of independence. However, from an earlystage, as the authors state, “though ‘civilian oversight of military budgeting inthe first republic’ seemed ‘total,’ it was largely ‘exclusive,’ residing in the handsof a few persons within the executive arm of government.” Over time, autocraticpresidents bypassed the legislature, and eventually even presidents lost control ofindividual powerful senior military officers. During this entire period, the Nigerianconstitution and civil-military laws remained exemplary, just unobserved.
(Continues…)Excerpted from MILITARY ENGAGEMENT by DENNIS BLAIR. Copyright © 2013 Council for a Community of Democracies. Excerpted by permission of Brookings Institution Press.
All rights reserved. No part of this excerpt may be reproduced or reprinted without permission in writing from the publisher.
Excerpts are provided by Dial-A-Book Inc. solely for the personal use of visitors to this web site.