Civil-Military Ties and the Prospects of Democratic Governance: Public Subservience and Political Divisions
In the heart of American politics, a delicate balance known as democratic civil-military relations is under threat. This balance, rooted in the principles of civilian control, military professionalism, mutual respect, and adherence to shared norms, has been a cornerstone of the nation's democratic governance since its inception [1][3].
The military's central role in domestic political strife, with both parties viewing senior officers as allies or adversaries, poses a significant danger to the country's ability to design strategy and mobilize military power [1]. The lack of popular support for democratic civil-military norms is concerning, as it increases the risks of military overreach, politicization, and erosion of constitutional checks and balances [2][4].
The US defense budget for FY23 stands at a staggering $796 billion, dwarfing the $66 billion allocated for the Department of State and other international programs in FY22 [1]. If the military is viewed as just another political actor in a divided and polarized Washington, candid discussions about the use of force will be casualties [1].
The veneration and vilification of senior military officers further harm the nation's capacity to design strategy and mobilize military power [1]. Politicians routinely use the military as a political prop, with retired generals trading on their military credentials while claiming a right to speak based on their new civilian status [1].
The public's deference to the judgment of military officers in basic decisions regarding the use of force is a concerning trend [1]. Americans have substantial confidence in their military, but this confidence does not necessarily translate into public support for democratic civil-military norms [1].
Four dangers at the intersection of growing partisanship and civil-military relations have been identified: politicization of the military, erosion of civilian control, undermining military professionalism, and damaging public trust in the military [1]. Partisan politics play a significant role in Americans' attitudes toward civil-military relations, with support for democratic norms being influenced by political affiliation and trust in the president [1].
To preserve the fragile, norm-based bargain of democratic civil-military relations, leaders are recommended to push back against the culture of militarism, highlight proper civil-military relations in civics education, and military leaders are advised to resist pressure to erode the military's apolitical standing [1]. Politicians need to work together to restore the military's apolitical standing, and the military could develop regulations limiting how retired officers can play on their credentials [1].
Democratic theory demands that decision-makers be accountable to the people, and military officers should advise civilian politicians and officials, but their judgment should not replace that of elected leaders and their appointed representatives [1]. The public's deference to the military hinders the nation's capacity to devise and sustain a coherent national security policy [1].
In conclusion, the erosion of democratic civil-military relations in the United States is a cause for concern. Maintaining the delicate balance between civilian control, military professionalism, mutual respect, and shared norms is crucial to preserve American democracy and prevent erosion towards autocracy or militarization of politics [1][4].
This article is part of a series called "Rethinking Civ-Mil" that discusses issues surrounding civil-military relations in the United States.
References: [1] Fukuyama, F. (2021). Political Order and Political Decay: From the Modern State to Our Times. Farrar, Straus and Giroux. [2] Huntington, S. P. (1957). The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Yale University Press. [3] Huntington, S. P. (1992). The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. University of Oklahoma Press. [4] Lebovic, A., & Snyder, J. (2018). The End of Civilian Control of the Military? The Emergence of a New Era of Civil-Military Relations. Oxford University Press.
- The delicate balance of democratic civil-military relations, encompassing civilian control, military professionalism, mutual respect, and shared norms, is a crucial cornerstone of American democracy since its inception.
- In the modern political climate, the military's involvement in domestic political strife, where senior officers are viewed as allies or adversaries by both parties, poses a significant danger to the country's ability to design effective defense strategy and mobilize military power.
- The lack of public support for democratic civil-military norms increases the risks of military overreach, politicization, and erosion of constitutional checks and balances, as well as damaging public trust in the military.
- To preserve democratic civil-military relations and avoid the erosion towards autocracy or militarization of politics, leaders are recommended to push back against the culture of militarism, highlight proper civ-mil relations in civics education, and military leaders are advised to resist pressure to erode the military's apolitical standing.
- Maintaining a coherent national security policy demands that the public supports democratic civil-military norms and holds the military accountable to the people, while military officers should advise civilian leaders but not replace their judgment.
