 | The examples and perspective in this articlemay not represent aworldwide view of the subject. You mayimprove this article, discuss the issue on thetalk page, orcreate a new article, as appropriate.(June 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Part of thePolitics series | ||||||||
| Basic forms ofgovernment | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| List of forms ·List of countries | ||||||||
Source of power | ||||||||
Power ideology
| ||||||||
 Politics portal | ||||||||
Civil control of the military is a doctrine inmilitary andpolitical science that places ultimateresponsibility for a country'sstrategic decision-making in the hands of the state'scivil authority, rather than completely with professionalmilitaryleadership itself. As such, a "fundamental requirement of any nation is to ensure that the activities of its armed forces be subordinated to the political purposes of constitutional government; hence, the armed forces must be under civil control".[1] The concept of civil control falls within the overarching concept ofcivil-military relations representing the "societal imperative that the military remain subordinate to civil authority and that it reflect, to an appropriate degree, societal values and norms".[2]
Civil oversight over militaries puts the power to take military action in the hands of a civil authority, such as through government ministers or legislative bodies, or the democratic apparatus of the Crown inconstitutional monarchies. Allowing the civil component of government to retain control over the military or state security illustrates the power of the citizenry, a healthy respect for democratic values, and what can be described as good governance.[3] Giving power to the civil component of the government over what the military can do and how much money it can spend protects the democratic process from abuse. Nations that can achieve legitimate relationship between the two structures serve to be more effective and provide accountability between government and military.[4]
Civil control can be accomplished in a number of ways, for example through complete civilian control or for a mixed civilian-military approach, for example, "typical for the British model of armed forces administration is the balanced ratio of civilian and military personnel in key ministerial positions".[5] Under the civil control model, a state's government and military are confined to the rule of law and submit to civil oversight to make an effective security apparatus possible.[4] Transparency has taken hold throughout the international system to improve bureaucracy and the democratisation of both democratic countries and resistant authoritarian holdovers. This has grown to involve the armed forces/security forces themselves to work towards the international norm of fully liberalising these organisations.[6]
Civil control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stableliberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of ademocracy governed byelectedofficials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. For example, there is oftencivilian control of the military in communist states, such as thePeople'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 theChinese Communist Party over thePeople's Liberation Army.
As noted byUniversity of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn, "civilian control is not a fact but a process".[7] Affirmations of respect for the values of civil control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civil leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that militarycommanders are expected to translate intooperational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governingpoliticians.National leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in theart andscience of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter thebureaucratic arena to advocate for or against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear cut lines of civil control.
The reverse situation, where professional military officers control national politics, is called amilitary dictatorship.
A lack of control over the military may result in astate within a state, as observed in countries like Pakistan. One author, paraphrasingSamuel P. Huntington's writings inThe Soldier and the State, has summarised the civil control ideal as "the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority".[8]
Advocates of civil control generally take aClausewitzian view ofwar, emphasizing itspolitical character.[citation needed] In thewords ofGeorges 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 reflects 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 civil control advocates as best guided by the will of the people (as expressed by theirpolitical representatives), rather than left solely to an elite group of tactical experts. The military serves as a specialgovernment agency, which is supposed toimplement, rather thanformulate, policies that require the use of certain types of physical force. Richard Kohn, Professor Emeritus of History atUNC, summarises,
"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."[7]
Astate'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 theirauthority. The danger of granting military leaders fullautonomy 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 lead to acoup ormilitary dictatorship. A related danger is the use of the military to crush domesticpolitical 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".[9] 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 specialise strictly in warfare. The military is authoritative and hierarchical, rarely allowing discussion and prohibiting dissension.[7] For example, in theEmpire of Japan, the Prime Minister and politicians were not allowed to exercise authority over the Imperial Army and Navy under the supreme command authority. This was considered an "interference with the supreme command authority" and was said to violate the Emperor's sovereignty. As a result, even if the local military ran wild or an armed conflict broke out, as in theManchurian Incident in 1931 and the border conflict with the Soviet Union in 1939, the Cabinet had no choice but to ultimately approve, even if it expressed concerns. Even GeneralTojo Hideki, who held the dual roles of Prime Minister and Minister of the Army, could not directly intervene in operational command, as it was under the jurisdiction of the General Staff. For this reason, Tojo attempted to unify state affairs and supreme command by taking on the dual role of Chief of the General Staff in 1944, but it did not work out.
.jpg)
According to a study ofSouth Korea, the military is responsible for enacting the policy and decisions handed down from the government. This is dependent on the civil government maintaining a strong grip on the power to enact binding decision and the military following these decisions in the agreed approach. Civil control is the authority of a nations political structure to make policy and implementation decisions that can be directed to the military to enact and then oversaw throughout.[10]
Internationally, in the developed world democratic countries have embraced a well-established civil-military relationship that has matured over time into a good working relationship. Newer democracies, depending on their political and military situations, have had to work through overcorrecting towards one side or the other on the seesaw of government control. A government establishing the kind of relationship to avoid civil-military conflict, needs like-minded officials in both organisations to agree and work together. “Democratically accountable civilian control is also associated with more prudent internal uses of armed force.”[4] The main focus of civil control in developing countries remains on ensuring a democratic restraint on militaries acting in their own self-interest. Militaries given too much power or too ethnically focused undermines a nations ability to prevent conflict and provide security. This can lead to the military abusing the very population it is supposed to be protecting with no real controlling mechanism. Most countries have developed similar systems of a ministry of defence to provide civilian oversight and coordination between military and government.[4]
Many of theFounding Fathers of the United States were suspicious ofstanding militaries. AsSamuel 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".[11] Even more forceful are the words ofElbridge Gerry, a delegate to theConstitutional 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."[11]
InFederalist No. 8, one ofThe 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 civil government that kept the military at a distance.
James Madison, another writer of many ofThe Federalist Papers,[12] 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.
TheUnited States Constitution placed considerable limitations on thelegislature. Coming from a tradition oflegislative 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 restraints would actually be more likely to preserve liberty. James Madison, inFederalist 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. InFederalist 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, inFederalist 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 U.S. military policy for the first century and a half of the country's existence. While the armed forces were built up during wartime, the pattern after every war up to and includingWorld War II was to demobilise quickly and return to something approaching pre-war force levels. However, with the advent of theCold 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 affectcivil–military relations in the United States.[14]
![[icon]](/mt/?noimg=&dark=on&url=http%3a%2f%2fen.wikipedia.org%2fwiki%2fFile%3aWiki_letter_w_cropped.svg) | This sectionneeds expansion. You can help byadding to it.(February 2010) |
 | This section needs to beupdated. The reason given is: is missing information on the Space Force. Please help update this article to reflect recent events or newly available information.(March 2022) |
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. TheCoast Guard is exempt from Posse Comitatus as one of its primarymissions is to enforce U.S. laws, even though it is an armed service.
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 federalised militias to enforce the laws of the United States. The act's primary purpose is to prevent local law enforcement officials from utilising federal forces in this way by forming a "posse" consisting of federal soldiers or airmen.[15]
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, statemilitia forces under state control i.e., that state'sArmy National Guard and/orAir 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.
Strong democratic control of the military is a prerequisite for membership inNATO. Strong democracy and rule of law, implying democratic control of the military, are prerequisites for membership in theEuropean Union.[16]
Maoist military-political theories ofpeople's war anddemocratic centralism also support the subordination of military forces to the directives of thecommunist party (although theguerrilla experience of many early leading Chinese Communist Party figures may make their status as civilians somewhat ambiguous). In a 1929 essayOn Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Mao Zedong 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 control of the People's Liberation Army by the CCP and greater political training of officers and enlistees as a means of reducing military autonomy.[17] In Mao's theory, the military—which serves both as a symbol of therevolution and an instrument of thedictatorship 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 theCentral Military Commission), but also to actively participate in the revolutionary political campaigns of the Maoist era.
.jpg)
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 civil control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilianpolice force,militia, or otherparamilitary 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 abalance of power in order to enforce the civil control of the military.
The establishment of a civilian head of state, head of government, or other government figure as the military'scommander-in-chief within thechain of command is one legal construct for the propagation of civilian control. However, in many constitutional monarchies, the monarch is both commander-in-chief and a member of the country's military, thus civil control does not necessitate complete control of only civilians.
In the United States,Article I of the Constitution givesCongress the power todeclare war (in theWar Powers Clause), whileArticle II of the Constitution establishes thePresident as the commander-in-chief. Ambiguity over when the President could take military action without declaring war resulted in theWar Powers Resolution of 1973.
American presidents have used the power to dismiss high-ranking officers as a means to assert policy and strategic control. Examples includeAbraham Lincoln's dismissal ofGeorge McClellan in theAmerican Civil War when McClellan failed to pursue theConfederateArmy of Northern Virginia following theBattle of Antietam, andHarry S. TrumanrelievingDouglas MacArthur of command in theKorean War after MacArthur repeatedly contradicted the Truman administration's stated policies on the war's conduc.
A major exception occurred during World War II, whenArmy Chief of StaffGeorge C. Marshall displaced the civilianSecretary of WarHenry L. Stimson as the most significant leader of theUnited States Army.[18] Another exception occurred in the2020-21 United States election crisis when Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of StaffMark Milley began requiring subordinates to check with him before carrying out orders from PresidentDonald Trump; he also called People's Liberation Army Commander-in-ChiefLi Zuocheng to assure him that the United States would not launch a military strike on China and that itsfederal government would remain stable. Some commentators, former military officials, and Republican members of Congress criticised Milley's actions as an undermining of civil control of the military, while Milley and others defended his actions and claimed he did not overstep his authority.[19][20][21][22]
Differing opinions exist as to the desirability of distinguishing the military as a body separate from the larger society. InThe Soldier and the State, Samuel Huntington argued for what he termed "objective civilian control", "focus[ing] on a politically neutral, autonomous, and professional officer corps".[8] This autonomous professionalism, it is argued, best inculcates anesprit de corps and sense of distinct military corporateness that prevents political interference by sworn servicepersons. 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 civil 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.[11]
In a lessegalitarian practice, societies may also blur the line between "civilian" and "military" leadership by making direct appointments of non-professionals (frequently social elites benefitting frompatronage ornepotism) to an officer rank. A more invasive method, most famously practiced in theSoviet Union and the People's Republic of China, involves active monitoring of theofficer corps through the appointment ofpolitical commissars, posted parallel to the uniformed chain of command and tasked with ensuring that national policies are carried out by the armed forces. The regularrotation 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 particularmilitary unit. Some governments place responsibility for approvingpromotions or officer candidacies with the civil 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 ofcommand, control, and communications; national leaders, whether democratically elected or not, had to rely on local commanders to execute the details of amilitary campaign, or risk centrally-directed orders' obsolescence by the time they reached thefront 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 andfield marshals would dictate strategy and tactics, and the civilian leadership would defer to their informed judgments.
Improvements ininformation technology and its application to wartime command and control (a process sometimes labeled the "Revolution in Military Affairs") has allowed civilian leaders removed from thetheatre of conflict to assert greater control over the actions of distant military forces.Precision-guided munitions and real-timevideoconferencing with field commanders now allow the civilian leadership to intervene even at thetactical 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 theHatch 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 civil 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 "politicisation" 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.
In the wars between theRoman Empire and the Goths in Italy during the500s CE, the incentives of the military and military necessity clashed with the incentives of the civilian leadership inConstantinople led byEmperor Justinian I. Supreme command in principle was held by the magister militumFlavius Belisarius, but his command in Italy was dissented from on a number of instances. Other representatives of the imperial court and generals allied with those representatives disagreed with Belisarius on decisions made, resulting in only a pyrrhic victory in Italy. Justinian sent a message to Belisarius whilebesieging Ravenna and when the Gothic garrison in the city was close to being defeated, ordering him to return East to assist with the defense of the empire againstKhosrow's invasion of the Roman Empire and instructed him to agree to a peace deal with the Goths under conditions considerably favourable to the Goths, but Belisarius objected to the order and delayed his return.
It was a common issue in the Roman Empire that rebellious generals would be able to overthrow the emperor, and emperors commonly clipped the wings of generals who were too successful and too popular, one such assassination of a popular general namedVitelian occurred under the recent reign ofEmperor Justin I, the uncle of Justinian. It was a particular issue in the case of Justinian as he had no biological children nor had ever legally adopted a son. During thePlague of Justinian, Belisarius was restricted to Constantinople under the influence ofEmpress Theodora who was concerned about the risk of a coup while Justinian was struck with a coma as a result of the epidemic.
The "Revolt of the Admirals" that occurred in 1949 was an attempt by senior U.S. Navy & Marine Corps personnel, to force a change in budgets directly opposed to the directives given by the civilian leadership.
U.S. PresidentBill Clinton faced frequent allegations throughout his time in office (particularly after theBattle 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 ofregulatory 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 U.S. intervention like that which occurred in theVietnam 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, asupdated byWeinberger's discipleColin Powell, with "overwhelming force". The process of settingmilitary budgets forms another contentious intersection of military and non-military policy, and regularly draws activelobbying by rival military services for a share of the national budget.
Nuclear weapons of the United States are controlled by the civilianDepartment of Energy, not by theDepartment of Defense.
During the 1990s and 2000s, public controversy overLGBT 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 DefenseDonald 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 criticised by some retired military officers for his handling of theIraq 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 theNovember elections in which the Democrats gained control of Congress, Rumsfeld resigned.[citation needed]
{{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help){{cite book}}:ISBN / Date incompatibility (help)