MILITARY
RULE
Military Rule
Military officers may overthrow an existing government and
become rulers through a coup d'état.
Military coups are not always selfish power grabs, but may be
seen as a temporary fix for a faltering economy or political
chaos.
Military rule can take many forms, including democraticlooking assemblies, single leader rule, or junta rule.
Reasons for Military
Intervention:
Poor government performance
Faltering economy
Corrupt political leaders and bureaucrats
Mass unrest and instability
Praetorianism
A political system where the military is actively
involved in politics, either openly or covertly.
Characterized by a cohesive and independent
military, weak civilian institutions, and the threat of
military intervention.
- Military leaders may work behind the scenes to
influence policy decisions, even without directly
controlling the government.
RECONSTRUCTING THE IRAQI
MILITARY AND
REESTABLISHING CIVILIAN
CONTROL
REBUILDING THE MILITARY
ESTABLISHING CIVILIAN CONTROL
The Iraqi military was decimated by the
invasion and officially disbanded by
coalition forces in May 2003. The US
provided new weapons and significant
training to the Iraqi military before
handing over domestic security control.
A major concern was establishing
civilian control over the reconstituted
military. Iraq had a history of military
intervention in politics, with at least
one coup d'état in every decade from
the 1930s to the 1960s.
SADDAM'S CIVILIAN CONTROL
POST-SADDAM CHALLENGES
Under Saddam Hussein, the Baath Party
controlled the military, and Saddam had
significant military decision-making
authority. However, this structure led to
problems during the Iran-Iraq War and
enabled Saddam to use the military for
domestic political purposes
After Saddam's overthrow, Iraq's
government was characterized by a lack
of a majority party in parliament,
leading to a months-long stalemate in
creating a new government in 2010.
RECONSTRUCTION EFFORTS
The US and international community
provided significant support for Iraq's
reconstruction, including rebuilding
infrastructure, revitalizing the oil
economy, and promoting economic
recovery initiatives.
ADVANTAGES AND
DISADVANTAGES OF A STRONG
POLITICAL ROLE FOR THE
MILITARY
ADVANTAGE 1: MAKING TOUGH POLICY
DECISIONS
ADVANTAGE 2: RESTORING ORDER AND
BATTLING CORRUPTION
Military governments can make tough
decisions without worrying about
reelection, while elected leaders may
avoid making unpopular choices, leading
to unresolved problems.The discussion
highlights the varying experiences of
countries with unelected institutions
(judiciary, bureaucracy, and military).
The military's ability to make tough
decisions can effectively tackle
corruption and instability, as seen in
South Korea's military government in
the 1960s under General Park Chung
Hee.
DISADVANTAGE 1: UNWILLINGNESS TO
SURRENDER POWER
Military leaders often seize power with
good intentions, but after achieving
their goals, they may be reluctant to
relinquish control, believing military rule
is superior or that they are superior
leaders, especially in countries with a
history of poor civilian governance.
DISADVANTAGE 2: A PERMANENT
PRESENCE IN POLITICS EVEN
Once a military intervenes in domestic
politics, it's likely to happen again.
Military personnel may feel entitled to
intervene, and civilian leaders may allow
continued military involvement, making
it challenging to establish civilian
control.
THE ORIGINS OF
POSTCOMMUNIST JUDICIAL
CULTURE
Researcher Daniel J. Beers questioned whether formal institutions
can reshape the judiciary culture in post-communist countries.
Beers compared Romania and the Czech Republic, which took
different paths to judicial reform.
-Despite Romania's major overhaul with external advice, Czech
judges had attitudes more aligned with the rule of law.
Beers linked this difference to disparities in
trust in institutions designed to protect judges'
interests.
Romanian judges felt less confident in formal
institutional changes than their Czech
counterparts
THINK
AND
DISCUSS
The discussion highlights the varying experiences of
countries with unelected institutions (judiciary, bureaucracy,
and military).
These institutions can play crucial roles in democratic rule,
but also pose challenges.
Unelected officials are vulnerable to corruption, but
measures like increasing judges' salaries can help.
Independence vs. control differs across institutions:
Judiciary: independence from executive control
reduces corruption.
Bureaucracy and military: greater executive and
legislative oversight is important.
Countries like Brazil, where these institutions have
significant powers and autonomy.
THANKYOU FOR
Listening