What are ‘civil-military’ relations, and why are they important?

Civil-military relations is the study and practice of cooperation between the military and the civilian body. Patricia Shields defines civil-military relations as “the relationship between civil society as a whole and the military organization or organizations established to protect it”.[1] This essay is arguing that civil-military relations are vitally important as they retain stability in a time where there are many threats to the state from both internal and external actors. By maintaining good civil-military relations, a state is limiting the power struggle between government and military, as well as ensuring the state's security from external threats. This essay will argue three points; Why civil-military relations are important in preventing unchecked military power. Why allowing a level of oversight from the government into the militaries actions is vital to prevent over-reaction, and abuse of power, and finally, what happens if there is not a good civil-military relationship, and the consequences of such an issue, as well as reasons good civil-military communication, has many benefits.[2]The essay will argue these points through the use of Samuel P. Huntington’s book, ‘Soldier and the State, and examples of when civil-military relations have not succeeded and coup d’état’s have occurred, such as the 2019 coup in Sudan. 

 

Firstly, civil-military relations are a balancing act between maintaining a military's lethality and its ability to carry out a specific task as well as preventing it from becoming so powerful and unchecked it can do what it likes. The Latin phrase ‘Quis custodiet Ipsos custodes’ translates roughly to ‘Who will guard the guardians’.[3] This refers to the notion that if the military is placed in charge of protecting the state from both foreign and domestic enemies, then who is providing oversight on the military to prevent it itself from becoming the enemy and doing what it wants[4]. Huntington successfully highlights why and how there is a separation between what the military does and who tells them to do it in his book, ‘Soldier and the State’[5], where he elaborates that the military professional is only successful at his job because of his distinct removal from politics. This was highlighted by Dr. F. Hawana, who mentioned that by following the thought process of Huntington, one would expect the military professional to not interfere in politics, even when he retires, but instead retire quietly. This is so as to maintain the separation between the military and government and prevent a seeping of ideology from one institution into another. This is because such a seeping of ideology from the military into government is a route that has been seen to end in further militarization of the state, as highlighted by the controversial 1033 programs in the United States.[6] The 1033 bill is a bill that passed, allowing US police forces to purchase old US military equipment, ranging from camouflage clothing to firearms and MRAPs (Mine Resistant Anti-Personnel Vehicles). This seeping of ideology into civil society has resulted ostensibly in more domestic killings by police (whether justified or not) than before the bill passed and is a key reason why maintaining separation between the government and the military is so important.  

 

The second argument that explains what civil-military relations are and why they are so important is seen when analyzing what happens when former military officers perform duties in government, why this is a good thing, and also why it is something that should be avoided. By having retired military officers in government, the government is opening itself up to an alternative view when it comes to the way foreign issues can be handled with the use of the military. This was shown in the case of the Trump administration, where President Trump placed senior ranking generals in major cabinet positions at the start of his term. This move allowed former military officers who had huge amounts of experience in the last 40 years of conflict to be able to advise the president on military action. This was important for the maintenance of civil-military relations in the administration as it initially prevented the president from making any rash decisions about military action.[7]These appointments allowed the president to maintain a better understanding of when and how the military is best utilized, giving him and the government insight into the thought process the military institutions had prior to engagements with enemy forces. This idea is supported by Morris Janowitz in his book ‘The Professional Soldier’, as highlighted in Patricia Shields Review, ‘Civil-Military Relations: Changing Frontiers’, where it is stated that Janowitz believed in a more ‘civic-republican’ theory in which civilians (and civilian leadership) and the military should be connected, as this provides more incentive for the military to remain loyal, as there is a connection between the soldiers and the people they are protecting.[8] This means, in the words of Patricia Shields, the military is comprised of ‘Citizen soldiers and that the institution reflects the larger society’.[9]

 However, this is a very different approach to Huntington, who believed the correct way to conduct civil-military relations was with absolute separation of the Government and Military powers but maintained that the military should always be under the governance solely of the civilian power (civilian control by the governmental institution).[10] When paraphrasing Huntington’s definition of civil-military relations in one sentence, Edward Taylor said, ‘civilian control was the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the end of policy as determined by civilian control’.[11] This indicates that whilst civil-military relations are a relationship, it is important that it should be ruled over by one side who have the final say, the civilian authority, which means the government is at the best position when it does not have (retired) military officers making up aspects of it, as it reduces the authority of civilian control. 

 

The third argument highlights how important civil-military relations are, as the result of poor relations are often a form of military aggression towards the home state as well as how they are an excellent tool for fostering good relations with other states as well as at home. This is highlighted through the fact there have been around 530 coups and coup attempts since 1950.[12] The 2019 coup in Sudan is a clear example of where a collapse in civil-military relations has resulted in the overthrowing of the government. Sudan has experienced a turbulent relationship between the power of the day and the military.[13] This has indicated a high level of military influence in politics in the country of the last 40 years and 13 coup attempts.[14] The fact there was and still is very little separation of power between the military and the government means that the military, which in Huntington’s opinion is full of professionals who are experts in the application of violence, had the final say in policymaking. As a result of this, the breakdown in civil-military relations resulted in the ultimate unchecked power, the military, taking power as soon as they viewed the public opinion of the government swayed on their side. This successfully highlights why civil-military relations are so important, as good levels of oversight and communication between the military and the government reduce the chance of military officials abusing their power. In contrast, having good civil-military relations can be vital when issues arise such as humanitarian disasters and natural disasters. This was the case in 2015 when a 7.8 magnitude earthquake struck Nepal.[15]Within 6 hours of the incident, Indian Military helicopters were flying aid to the region. This would not have been possible without excellent communication between the Indian government and its military, as well as with the Nepalese government. Civil-military relations are not only vital in the protection of a nation but also vital for the recovery and humanitarian effort following a massive natural disaster. Without good leadership and communication between government and military assets, civil-military relationships will break down and have major consequences, ranging from coup d’état’s and humanitarian efforts, as shown in the previous examples. 

 

In conclusion, it has been discussed how civil-military relations is the relationship between the military and the civilian body. The argument has shown that the civil-military relationship is best fostered through good communication and a level of interoperability between the government and the military. Having a military that is run by the officer class but overseen by the civilian governing body has been shown to be the most effective method of controlling the military and preventing abuse of power, as shown in Sudan. Furthermore, civil-military relations have been proven to be vitally important in providing a check on military power excess as well as ensuring adequate use of the military when responding to humanitarian crises. This essay has argued how Huntington’s ‘Soldier and the State’ and Janowitz’ ‘the professional soldier’ have both got their merits but in reality, the best way to conduct civil-military relations is by utilizing both frameworks to combine autonomy as well as accountability. 

Civil-military relations are vital, not only for the protection of the state but also for the survival of the state internally. It is a fine balance of allowing the military to have enough power to do their jobs but also allowing enough government and civilian oversight that the power is kept in check and not abused. 

This essay has outlined what civil-military relations are and how important they are through the analysis of Huntington and Janowitzian theories as well as looking into how important they are through the use of examples from Donald Trump’s ‘General strewn’ administration to the 2019 coup in Sudan and the relief effort in Nepal following the devastating earthquake that hit it in 2015. Civil-military relations play a key part in the effective running and security of a state and when such an important relationship fails, there are terrible consequences as a result. 

---

[1] Shields, P. ‘Civil-Military Relations’ in Encyclopaedia of Public Administration and Public Policy, Edited by Domonic A. Bearfield, Evan M. Berman, Melvin J, Dubnik (Taylor & Francis group), p. 6. 

[2] War On The Rocks, The Precarious State Of Civil-Military Relations In The Age Of Trump. Available at https://warontherocks.com/2018/03/the-precarious-state-of-civil-military-relations-in-the-age-of-trump/ [Accessed 14 October 2019].

[3] Tertullian, The Ways of Women. Available at http://www.tertullian.org/fathers/juvenal_satires_06.htm  [Accessed 14 October 2019].

[4]Feaver, P. ‘The Problematique’, Civil Military Relations, 2 (1999) p. 214. 

[5] Huntington, S. ‘Power, professionalism and Ideology: Civil-Military Relations in Theory; in The Soldier and the State. Samuel P Huntington (Harvard University Press), p. 80. 

[6] Delehanty, C. ‘1033 Program and Militarisation’ in Militarisation and Police Violence: The Case of the 1033 Program. Edited by Casey Delehanty, Jack Mewhirter, Ryan Welch, Jason Wilks (Research and Politics), p. 2.

[7] The Atlantic, Are Trumps Generals Mounting a Defence of Democratic Institutions? Available at https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2017/01/trump-vs-the-generals/515109/ [Accessed 18 September 2019].

[8] Shields, P. ‘Civil-Military relations: Changing Frontiers’ in Public Administration Review, Edited by Naomi Caiden (Texas State University) p. 4.

[9] Ibid, p. 4.  

[10] Huntington, S. ‘Power, professionalism and Ideology: Civil-Military Relations in Theory; in The Soldier and the State. Samuel P Huntington (Harvard University Press), p. 81.

[11] Defence Technical Information Centre, Command in the 21^st Century: An introduction to Civil-Military Relations. Available at https://apps.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a346358.pdf [Accessed 20 September 2019]. 

[12] Institute for Advanced Study, Are military coups going out of style? Available at https://www.ias.edu/ideas/2016/mccargo-coups[Accessed 20 September 2019].

[13] Foreign Policy, How To Make Sudan’s Revolution Succeed. Available at https://foreignpolicy.com/2019/09/09/how-to-make-sudans-revolution-succeed-hemeti-burhan-tmc/ [Accessed 20 September 2019].

[14] Ibid. 

[15] Humanitarian Practice Network, The Importance of Civil-Military dialogue. Available at https://odihpn.org/blog/the-importance-of-civil-military-dialogue/ [Accessed 22 September 2019].