Civil-Military Relations Theory by Morris Janowitz

[00:00:00]welcome to another deep dive this one um might seem a bit well historical oh we're going back to 1964 okay yeah using a book by Morris janowitz I know janovitz yeah the military and the political development of new nations ah classic it is but here's the thing yeah it's scary how much it still applies today I'm intrigued what's the angle we're taking imagine you're advising a brand new country like just got independence what do they need to know about their military that's a great way to frame it because it's not just about like tanks and guns right it's about the whole relationship between the military and the the government the people system exactly so to start when ytz talks about these new nations who's he actually talking about he's mostly focused on uh those countries in Africa and Asia okay that got their independence or or modernized really fast after World War II it's like a formal category though no not like developed or whatever it's more about the shared experience they were all going through similar economic problems social stuff right but the biggest one I think was figuring out the military like where it fits in once you're not fighting for Freedom anymore exactly how do you go from an army of you know revolutionaries to an army that actually helps build a stable nation and that's not an easy transition what I find interesting is who janowitz doesn't include oh Latin America oh yeah they had the tons of coups military involvement in politics right right but their history is different totally they got independent way earlier so by the time janowitz is writing their civil military uh how they work together it had already evolved along a different path he's zeroing in on that post World War II wave where things were still raw you know like figuring it out as they went so let's get into those raw issues janowitz starts with this concept of uh legitimacy legitimacy right seems simple but Q G for new nations why is it so important especially when we're talking about the military okay so legitimacy is at its core whether people believe their leaders have the right to actually rule like do they deserve to be in charge exactly it's the Bedrock of any government but imagine a country where everyone thinks me these guys are phonies guaranteed and for new nations it's even more fragile they've just gone through Revolution independent struggles huge upheaval the old way is gone gone but the new one's still got to prove itself and the military gets Tangled Up In This legitimacy question in a in a really interesting way because they're the ones with the guns right in a way yeah on one hand the military being organized using Force they can be a powerful symbol right like Authority so a new government might use them to show strength especially if things are shaky exactly project that control yeah but here's the paradox genoz is getting at okay this book is about how the military can help these new nations modernize with and this is key as little Force as possible that seems kind of backwards you think strong Army equals they just impose order done right but Jano what is saying no so why why emphasize this less forceful approach because real lasting stability it comes from people being persuaded not just forced if you want a nation to develop grow people got to buy into the system not be scared into it so you're saying the military can be part of that but under the right conditions exactly and those conditions that's all about what kind of civil military relationship you've got going on okay so we need to Define that what does a quote unquote healthy relationship look like janitz starts by well he looks at how the industrialized nations did it okay just to give us a comparison Point makes sense he finds three basic models that were common in the west so first you've got the Democratic model probably most familiar to us like the US Europe yeah military is there for defense foreign policy they stay out of domestic stuff clear separation civilian leaders military leaders elected officials make the calls military carries it out classic but that's not the only way to do things so I figured what else is there there's the aristocratic model aristocratic yeah think old school Europe Knights Nobles all that okay military and aristocracy were like totally intertwined shared ideology shared interest control wasn't about rules so much it was about like social bonds interesting so less about laws more about who you know who you're related to exactly and then there's the third model which uh well the 20th century showed us how real this one can get the totalitarian model totalitarian here the military is like a tool of the one party State they might get tons of resources influenced but they're also tightly controlled police party members in the ranks constant surveillance so the party uses them uses them but also is scared of them big time they know a powerful military could turn on them so they keep it on a very short leash yeah but here's the catch with all three of these models none of them quite fit what was happening in these new nations because their situation was so different totally their militaries were often way more prominent playing a bigger role in everything even daily life so jovz had to come up with something new he did he went beyond those existing models and created a framework specifically for these newly independent or rapidly modernizing countries he gets into five distinct types which is what we're going to get into next I am ready from least to most military power you got it and remember thinking back to that advisor role each type comes with its own its own like opportunities and dangers all right hit me with type one authoritarian personal control pretty much what it sounds like the military's job is to G one leader in power like a strong man kind of thing exactly often a charismatic dude Rose to power during the independence fight Revolution something like that got an example early Ethiopia hail salassi or South Vietnam NM okay so you've got this powerful figure yeah and the arm's there to make sure nobody messes with him basically this type often pops up when a country is facing threats instability the leader leans on the military for security then uses that power to make his own position stronger so if I'm advising a new nation and I see this happening what should I be worried about the big question is does this Reliance on the military actually hurt the country in the long run how so can you build a real democracy a strong economy all that good stuff when one person is calling all the shots backed up by guns that's the Dilemma that's a good point to ponder all right we got authoritarian personal control what's next type two authoritarian Mass party control kind of similar but instead of one big leader it's the party that's in charge ah okay less about one person's Charisma more about the the ideology the organization exactly think Communist States or those single party regimes that were common in Africa back then so the military's role is different here yeah they're often smaller not as well equipped and you see a counterbalance like a strong police force paramilitaries all loyal to the party sounds like they want to keep the Army in check oh yeah they see him as a Potential Threat limit their resources keep them on a tight leash now for type three me this is the one everyone hopes for Democratic competitive we're the military stays out of politics even during elections yeah they respect the civilian government focus on defense that's the ideal it is but rare especially back then janowitz highlights India in the 60s though really yeah despite all their problems they made it work democracy military mostly stayed in its Lane shows it can't be done encouraging all right what about type four this one's strict here civil military Coalition Coalition the military is a major player but alongside other groups political parties unions you name it so they're at the table big time but not running the whole show yet that's the question is it stable can they stay a partner or do they inevitably take over type five brings us to that takeover scenario I'm guessing that's fullon military rule yep military oligarchy straightforward the military is oh the government might have some civilian window dressing but the top brass calls the shots 100% y know what's his main example for this one is Egypt in the early 60s under Nasser ah right his free officers movement took over a decade earlier military was firmly in charge so if we're advising a new nation and we see this pattern yeah what are the red flags well even within military oligarchy there's variation some are super obvious about it others try to look more civilian the key is to look past the labels understand how they got there how they rule Nuance Nuance Nuance always so we've got these five types from propping up one leader to full-on military rule but as advisers does this just mean we slap a label on a country and call it a day nope janowitz gives us this cool tool but then he takes it further he actually puts 51 new nations as of 1963 into these categories like a snapshot of the world so we can see the trends what's common with surprising what our new nation needs to watch out for exactly you might think with all the talk about democracy that Democratic competitive type would be everywhere yeah not even close the most common wory authoritarian ones which is scary shows how fragile things are early on good point but there's more to it than just labeling right can't just say oh it's authoritarian personal control and move on you got it janit says these categories are just the start we got to consider the specifics the history the politics even the culture of each place he lays three big factors that are super insightful blam on me what's the first one seems obvious but people forget it historical background lumping all new nations together is silly their pasts are totally different right so how does he break it down three main areas each with a different relationship to like military power okay area number one South and Southeast Asia this is where colonialism hit the hardest totally reshaped everything but here's the thing yeah even with centuries of Kingdoms and Empires military rule wasn't like super ingrained in their culture which is weird because they had a lot of coups and stuff later on right makes you think maybe strong rulers in the past doesn't automatically mean the military will always dominate colonialism kind of messed with that created a void that new armies had to fill so their history isn't Destiny what about area 2 Middle East and North Africa totally different story long tradition of the military being in politics Ottomans caliphates all that military leaders were often tied to religious too had a big say in how things were run so that Legacy kind of carried over even after Independence big time and colonialism while impactful didn't reshape them as much as southeast Asia those old ways of thinking about power they stuck around so if you're advising a nation there got to be aware of that that history of the military being involved okay what's area three subsaharan Africa unique case because by the time they got independent they had almost n indigenous military tradition left centuries of slave trade then brutal colonialism wiped it all out so starting from scratch but not in a good way right they had to build armies from nothing often copying foreign models which came with its own problems dependence on other countries stuff like that exactly so three very different historical contexts South and Southeast Asia colonialism disrupted things Middle East Military involvement was already there subsaharan Africa they had to invent it all no easy answers there but I bet there's more oh yeah this is just layer one janowitz is second big factor is about the origin of the military itself how that Army came to be matters a lot so even within a region it's different five types he lays out and this is where it gets super nuanced crucial for our advisor role first up non-colonial armies non-colonial grew organically without being forced on them by a colonial power think Thailand never colonized or Ethiopia fought off the Italians so they have that Connection to the Past strong sense of tradition national pride but can they adapt to the modern world that's the challenge right they might resist change struggle to modernize okay what's origin type two EXC Colonial armies these are the ones inherited directly from well the colonizers yeah British model French model it all makes a difference so trained by the British act differently than trained by the French oh huge difference British were all about professionalism separate military from civilian stuff French more Hands-On military keeps order projects power wow so the colonial past still shapes things even after they're gone like a ghost lingering all right origin type three National Liberation armies born out of the fight for Freedom Guerilla groups resistance movements they become the Army I can see how those guys would get political oh yeah they see themselves as protectors Guardians of the Revolution super suspicious of the old Elites anyone who seems like a sellout makes sense sense they fought for this they're not going to let it slip away okay what's type four post Liberation armies created after Independence is already won different challenge they get to professionalize fast build up their strength prove they're legit from scratch basically G is a good example form their army after they were already free from Britain tough job right limited resources maybe needing help from other countries which creates its own dependencies It's Tricky need an army but don't want to be rant on someone else exactly and finally type five me reflect how messy the postcolonial world is postcolonial with significant EXC Colonial elements a bit of a mouth basically a mix new core but lots of holdovers from the colonial days officers who serve the old regime equipment even ways of thinking tension City oh yeah Old Guard versus New Blood janowitz uses South Vietnam as an example yeah post Liberation Army but tons of officers had served in the French army before talk about divided loyalties okay to some our Origins non-colonial ex-colonial National Liberation post Liberation and this hybrid one each with its own like baggage and each influencing how they act on the political stage as advisers got to know the origin story it's not just where a country I ATS it's where they've come from adds a whole layer of complexity okay so we got history we got Origins what's the third big thing janit says to consider this one might seem off at first but it's huge economic development now here's the usual thought richer country equals more likely to be Democratic military stays out of things makes sense strong economy less need for the Army to get involved but genowitz throws a curveball the link between economics and the military's role is way more complicated really so booming economy doesn't equal hands-off Army not always he does say that in super poor countries you often see what he calls personalist rule one leader relies on the military to survive like we talked about authoritarian personal control when there's not much to go around power gets concentrated and the military often becomes the decider but it gets weird after that right once you get past that extreme poverty the link between economics and Military intervention it gets murky so a country doing better economically could still have a coup just as easily as a peaceful democracy that's what janowitz found development doesn't guarantee anything in some cases it might even make military intervention more likely now that doesn't make sense you'd think Prosperity equals less need for a takeover seems that way but here's why it might happen as an economy grows the military often wants more better equipment more pay more say in how things are run so their appetite grows along with the economy you got it and if the civilian leaders are seen as corrupt or failing to deliver that creates tension the military thinks we deserve more we can do better right plus economic growth often brings social change urbanization new Elites all of which can destabilize things military might step in to restore order and some people might even cheer them on it's not just money it's what comes with the money the social and political changes and that's why janit says you can't give economic advice without considering the politics boosting a country's GDP doesn't mean the military will just sit back and watch it's all intertwined okay so to recap our big three factors historical background origin of the military and this complex Economic Development thing no simple answers there no they're more like tools to help us understand how complicated this all is avoid making dumb assumptions but there's more to it than just the context right we got to look inside the military itself what's going on in their heads exactly genowitz doesn't just look at the big picture he goes deep into the military as an organization and it gets really interesting okay I'm ready for another Deep dive what does he focus on everything their structure their skills where they recruit from education even their ideology he wants to know what makes them tick let's start with structure then what do these armies look like in practice well keep in mind it's 1964 no fancy drones or cyber warfare yet most of them are built on the World War II infantry model boots on the ground basic combat skills clear chain of command old school but effective and their experience level varies a lot some like in Burma had seen tons of combat others barely any I can see how that would make a difference battle hardened versus parade ground soldiers and here's another thing thing they really wanted to be seen as different from the police soldiers not cops why is that just Pride or something deeper Yano it says it's partly Pride but it has consequences by not doing the messy stuff repressing civilians they keep this image of themselves as a clean Force but that also makes them more likely to intervene in a big way when they dooa right you got it they haven't been tarnished by the dirty work so they can step in looking like the good guys acting for the nation makes them harder to resist that's a smart point it's like they're saving up their legitimacy for a rainy day okay what about their skills though does military training actually prepare you to run a country good question yeno says it's a mixed bag some skills transfer like Logistics planning handling crises but there're also big limits like what well military training is all about hierarchy following orders making quick decisions great for a battlefield not so much for a politician who needs to build consensus compromise all that messy stuff so are military leaders doomed to fail in government then not necessarily hovitz actually points to a certain kind of Officer who's more likely to have the right stuff he calls them adaptive career officers adaptive career what makes them different they've had experiences that force them to think outside the box adapt to new situations foreign postings where they had to deal with different cultures maybe they worked with new technologies learned to ad adapt quickly more flexible more politically aware exactly they' see more had to deal with more so they understand the world better and Yan says these are the guys who might actually do well in a civilian role like cabinet ministers Diplomat even leading the country so it's not impossible but it takes a specific kind of military background okay what about where they come from their social class does that matter big time and it's different from like Old Europe most of these new nations there's no feudal aristocracy no hereditary Knights calling the shots so where do all these officers come from Mostly middle class backgrounds often rural Roots sons of teachers small land owners that kind of thing a new generation often the first to get higher education so they're ambitious driven to succeed how does that shape their worldview well on one hand it makes them modernizers they want progress they want their countries to be successful they're not stuck in the past but on the other hand it also makes them distrustful full of Elites intellectuals politicians who they see as out of touch ah so that explains some of the tension between the military and civilian leaders they come from different worlds different values exactly and that distrust can be a big driver for intervention they don't just want Power they want to fix things okay so social background matters what about their education another key point and again different from Europe most of these officers they don't come from purely military schools they have a civilian education as their base you University degrees engineering law even literature so wider range of ideas exposed to different ways of thinking right makes them more well-rounded but also means they've been thinking about politics from a young age they're not just learning how to fight they're learning about how the world works and that shapes how they see the military's role now when it comes to their actual ideology yeah like their core beliefs about the military and society janowitz says there's no one military ideology but there are some common threads that strong nationalism for one they're Defenders Of The Nation that's their core identity also a big emphasis on hard work discipline efficiency a sense of Duty almost like a puritanical work ethic but not in the religious sense I can see how that clashes with how some governments work especially if they're corrupt or inefficient big time and that leads to another key part of their ideology distrust of politicians we've talked about it but it's really important they see politicians as corrupt self-serving more interested in lining their pockets than serving the country we've talked about why they might think that but is it just cynicism or something more yanit says it often comes from a genuine desire to see their country succeed they're patriotic they want things to work they get frustrated When leaders fail to live up to their ideals so I think they can do better sometimes yeah and that's where it gets dangerous that belief mixed with their distrust of politicians and their sense of of Duty it can make intervention very tempting recipe for a coup right there belief in their own competence skepticism of the civilians and that sense of mission but how W does it actually happen what are the mechanics of a military takeover so we've got all these factors pushing a military towards taking over their history what's going on inside the military even the economy but how does a coup actually go down did they just show up one morning and announce it you'd be surprised the Janis he breaks it down into two main types calls them designed and reactive and they're pretty different design militarism sounds like a planned thing right officers plotting in secret like a spy movie exactly think of it like a well organized coup they have a plan a core group of leaders and lots of support within the military like nasser's free officers in Egypt they spent years building up to it before they finally made their move in 52 got rid of the king so it takes brains not just Brawn what about reactive militarism is that more spur of the moment it is and it's way more common in these new countries it's not so much a plan more like reacting to a crisis yeah the military sees the country falling apart chaos maybe the econom is tanking violence in the streets they think we're the only ones who can fix this and boom they take over so they frame it as Duty saving the nation exactly a patriotic act even if they might actually believe it Pakistan's a good example they had a bunch of coups that were more reactive than planned usually triggered by some mess like political deadlock corruption scandals or the economy going haywire makes you think if the civilian government had done a better job maybe the military wouldn't have felt they had to step in that's a big Point yanowitz makes it's not just about the military being willing to take over it's about what makes it easy for them to do it and here's a weird one he found that coups almost never happen against one party States wait really that's surprising those regimes seem like they'd be prime targets it does right but think about it those one party stat stes whether they're communist or whatever they're really good at controlling the military they put their own people in the ranks they have their own Security Forces to keep the Army in check they use propaganda surveillance the whole nine yards they know a coup is possible so they work hard to prevent it so they're so afraid of it they actually stop it from happening kind of ironic right it shows you how much power is about perception and it's something for you as our adviser to think about if you're helping build a new nation you got to be smart about the balance of power Not Just Between the military and the civilians but between everyone different parts of the government different political parties all the groups that make up Society keep everyone in check so no one gets too powerful exactly Okay so we've talked about things inside a country that can cause coups but what about outside influences does yanowitz get into foreign policy I was just thinking that like these new nations aren't just dealing with their own problems they're stepping onto a world stage that's already pretty messed up right and Jano it's hits on this remember it's the Cold War US and Soviet Union are fighting for influence everywhere offering Aid Military Support all that and that puts a ton of pressure on these new nations and their militaries so it's not just about who's in charge at home it's about navigating global politics and trying not to get crushed in the process exactly think about military aid if a country depends on one superpower for weapons and training that creates leverage the military might feel like they have to keep that P happy even if it means going against their own government so a foreign power could actually encourage a coup use the local military to get what they want happened all the time during the Cold War Latin America Africa southeast Asia you name it one side backs a coup to get a friendly regime in power the other side tries to destabilize things super dangerous game and for these new countries it's like trying to learn to walk while balancing on a tight rope it's rough janowitz suggests that one way to avoid this match is to get support from multiple countries that way you're not beholding to just one it gives you more options more Independence don't put all your eggs in one basket smart and it's still relevant today even though the Cold War is Over you've got China India the EU all competing for influence it's a multi-polar world now more complicated in a way for sure but the idea is the same don't rely on just one power build relationships diversify your support and keep your options open Okay so we've covered a lot different types of coups things that make them likely foreign policy the whole Global context but the big question is can it be prevented can these new nations be stable and successful without the military constantly messing with politics that's what everyone wants to know can we avoid this whole cycle of coup and instability that's the million-dollar question and janowitz he doesn't give us a simple answer but he does talk about some conditions that make what he calls political balance more likely it's where the military does its job defending the country but doesn't try to run everything okay I'm all yours what does a healthy relationship between the military and the government look like the first thing and it's the most important is civilian control of the military but it's not just about having a civilian leader in charge it's about making sure the military itself respects civilian Authority they understand their place in a democracy they follow the decisions of elected officials even when they disagree so clear rules Prof standards checks and balances all that good stuff right and that's hard to do especially when the military was so important in winning Independence or when they think they're the only ones who could protect the country they might think they're above politics that they know best like who watches the Watchmen you got to make sure even the guys with guns are accountable to the people what else makes this political balance more likely janowitz calls the second thing internal professionalism it's all about creating a culture of Merit competence and doing things the right way inside the military clear standards for everything from Recruitment and training to Promotions and discipline and those standards have to be applied fairly no matter who you know or what your political views are so a professional military that's focused on defending the country not on personal gain or political power exactly and it means emphasizing education both military and civilian encouraging critical thinking teaching ethical Behavior you want officers who are not just good at fighting but who are also thoughtful responsible leaders who understand the world it's like you're describing a new breed of military leader someone who can operate in both the military and civilian worlds right someone who can work with civilian leaders who respects the law and who knows that their loyalty is to the Constitution and the people not to some political party or ideology that's a great goal but is it realistic it seems super hard to achieve especially for these new countries that are dealing with so many other problems it is tough but genuit give some examples of countries that did manage to find that balance where the military played a positive role without taking over India like we talked about before is a good example they had huge challenges but they made democracy work and the military mostly stayed in its Lane that gives me some hope but it sounds like it takes a lot of things going right good leadership commitment to democracy and a bit of luck maybe you got it there's no one- siiz fits-all solution every country is different but janitz gives us a way to think about these problems to analyze what's going on and to try to find solutions that will work it's like a road map not a set of instructions exactly it helps us understand how the military and the government should interact and it shows us the dangers of letting things get out of balance okay so imagine I'm that adviser again sitting with the leaders of this new nation they want to build a successful country a democracy that works what do I tell them what's the most important advice you'd give them based on all we've learned from jts well first I'd tell them to really understand their own history don't just try to copy what other countries have done what worked for India might not work somewhere else every country has to find its own path know thyself right exactly and then I'd tell them to build a military that's strong and professional but keep it under control invest in training education all that but don't give them a free pass make sure the civilians are in charge set clear limits on what the military can and can't do find that balance between a capable military and a strong democracy exactly and lastly I'd remind them that building a successful country takes time there are going to be problems setbacks maybe even crises but if they stick to their principles take care of their people and build institutions that work they have a real shot at making it well said it's a message of Hope but also a challenge it reminds us that the future isn't set in stone we have to create it day by day through our choices and our actions well on that note I think we've reached the end of our Deep dive into the military and new ations thanks for coming along on this journey with us we've covered a lot of ground from types of military rule to the factors that shape how things work out from how coups happen to what a balanced system might look like it's been a great discussion and I hope it's got people thinking about how important it is to get this relationship between the military and Society right if you're interested in learning more definitely check out Jan wix's book it's a tough read but it's full of smart insights that are still relevant today and remember figuring out how to have a military that serves the people not the other way around is something we have to keep working on all the time everywhere it's a constant effort and there's always more to learn well that's all for this episode of The Deep dive thanks for listening thanks for having me for