The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in PoliticsThe role of the military in a society raises a number of issues: How much separation should there be between a civil government and its army? Should the military be totally subordinate to the polity? Or should the armed forces be allowed autonomy in order to provide national security? Recently, the dangers of military dictatorships-as have existed in countries like Panama, Chile, and Argentina-have become evident. However, developing countries often lack the administrative ability and societal unity to keep the state functioning in an orderly and economically feasible manner without military intervention. Societies, of course, have dealt with the realities of these problems throughout their histories, and the action they have taken at any particular point in time has depended on numerous factors. In the "first world" of democratic countries, the civil-military relationship has been thoroughly integrated, and indeed by most modern standards this is seen as essential. However, several influential Western thinkers have developed theories arguing for the separation of the military from any political or social role. Samuel Huntington, emphasized that professionalism would presuppose that the military should intervene as little as possible in the political sphere. Samuel E. Finer, in contrast, emphasizes that a government can be efficient enough way to keep the civil-military relationship in check, ensuring that the need for intervention by the armed forces in society would be minimal. At the time of the book's original publication, perhaps as a consequence of a post-World War II Cold War atmosphere, this was by no means a universally accepted position. Some considered the military to be a legitimate threat to a free society. Today's post-Cold War environment is an appropriate time to reconsider Finer's classic argument. "The Man on Horseback" continues to be an important contribution to the study of the military's role in the realm of politics, and will be of interest to students of political science, government, and the military. |
Other editions - View all
The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics Samuel Edward Finer,Jay Stanley No preview available - 2002 |
Common terms and phrases
Accion Democratica Algeria American Argentina armed forces army's Ayub Khan Bakr Sidqi Bétancourt blackmail cabinet civil power Civil-Military Relations civilian authorities civilian government civilian organizations civilian régime Colonel command communist constitution countries coup cuartelazo decision Democracy democratic developed dictatorship displacement Egypt Egyptian elections established faction factors favour Finer France French Frondizi garrison Germany independence institutions Iraq Japan Japanese Jiménez junta Kapp Kapp putsch Latin America leaders legitimacy level of political London ment military intervention military régime military rule military's motives Nasser nationalist Ne Win Neguib officer corps oligarchy order of political overt Pakistan Paraguay Perón political culture political parties Political Science politicians popular sovereignty President pressure Prime Minister professional purged quasi-civilianized rebels Reichswehr Republic resign resistance Revolution Rojas social society soldiers South Vietnam Soviet Spain Spanish successful Sudan supplantment Syria threat tion Tosei-ha traditional troops Turkey Turkish Union Venezuela
Popular passages
Page 19 - Strength should be lord of imbecility, And the rude son should strike his father dead: Force should be right; or, rather, right and wrong, (Between whose endless jar justice resides,) Should lose their names, and so should justice too.
Page 19 - Force should be right; or rather, right and wrong, Between whose endless jar justice resides, Should lose their names, and so should justice too. Then...
Page 7 - THE armed forces have three massive political advantages over civilian organizations: a marked superiority in organization, a highly emotionalized symbolic status, and a monopoly of arms. They form a prestigious corporation or Order, enjoying overwhelming superiority in the means of applying force. The wonder, therefore, is not why this rebels against its civilian masters, but why it ever obeys them.
Page 64 - We kept severely aloof from politics. (You may not know but I refused on several occasions the late Mr Ghulam Mohammad's offer to take over the country. I did so in the belief that I could serve the cause of Pakistan better from the place where I was and also had a faint hope that some politicians would rise to the occasion and lead the country to a better future.
Page 27 - I find in existence a new and heretofore unknown and dangerous concept that the members of our Armed Forces owe primary allegiance and loyalty to those who temporarily exercise the authority of the executive branch of government, rather than to the country and its Constitution which they are sworn to defend. No proposition could be more dangerous.
Page 146 - It is a very special pressure group because of its immense resources, and because of its grave problems of national security. The military have accumulated considerable power, and that power protrudes into the political fabric of contemporary society.
Page 19 - Treason doth never prosper ; what's the reason ? For if it prosper none dare call it treason.
Page 18 - As soon as it is possible to disobey with immunity, disobedience is legitimate; and the strongest being always in the right, the only thing that matters Is to act so as to become the strongest But what kind of right is that which perishes when force fails?
Page 6 - Instead of asking why the military engage in politics, we ought surely to ask why they ever do otherwise.
Page 21 - The strongest is never strong enough to be always the master, unless he transforms strength into right, and obedience into duty. Hence the right of the strongest, which, though to all seeming meant ironically, is really laid down as a fundamental principle.