Military dictatorship

• 1. Origins And Formation Processes

  ›

  A general walks in military uniform flanked by other officers during the May Coup of 1926. This image captures a moment when Polish dictator Józef Piłsudski and his fellow military officers seized control of their government. Most military dictatorships form after such coups d'état overthrow previous administrations. These events typically occur when there is a perceived threat to the military or its interests as an institution. Cuts to military funding often trigger these reactions, alongside civilian interference in military affairs. Military officers have a vested interest in securing increased pay and benefits while preventing political intervention in promotions. Failure to address these issues may cause interest in military-led regime change. Such coups are most common in the developing world where a lack of democracy necessitates such events for changes in leadership. The military is well-equipped to seek and maintain political power because it is often more modernized than other institutions in a given country. It has access to resources and training not available to civil leaders. A regime can also be formed by an insurgency or an informal group of militants that attempt to seize power in a government. When insurgents form a dictatorship they are not constrained by formal military procedures but their lack of organization increases the likelihood of opposing factions developing within the group. Several justifications can be offered by military leadership including improper behavior of the civilian government or a threat of communist takeover. An increase of the military budget is a common goal across regimes.

• 2. Structural Classifications And Governance

  ›

  Augusto Pinochet stands in front of several other men representing Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet and his Government Junta. The organization of power in a military dictatorship is heavily influenced by the chain of command used in militaries. In military dictatorships with a single ruler the dictator is typically the highest ranking officer among those involved in a coup. The hierarchical structure of a military lends itself to efficient control in a dictatorship led by military officers. The inner circle that carries out the dictator's orders is made up of other military officers responsible for representing the forces under their command. These officers are expected to comply with standard procedure for military promotion. As these officers have control over large numbers of soldiers and weapons dictators have strong incentive to appease them. They can serve as a constraining force on the dictator. Military dictators often hold strong control over regional leaders appointed by them because they are subject to the dictator's orders under the chain of command. Junior officers sometimes take power through a military coup particularly when factionalism has broken down the traditional command structure. Most coups led by junior officers defer to senior officers after seizing power. Civilians are subject to the decisions of military leadership typically without any role in decision making. Force is used to ensure compliance. Civilian presence in the government is sometimes used to create legitimacy but this varies between regimes.

• 3. Global Historical Trajectories

  ›

  A woodblock print details several leaders in traditional Japanese uniforms from the 19th century depicting rulers of the Tokugawa shogunate. The rule of warlords that seized power over the central government in ancient China have been compared to modern military dictatorships. Dong Zhuo in the 2nd century and Cao Cao in the 3rd century exemplify early forms of such rule. Korea underwent military rule in the post-classical era when the Goguryeo kingdom fell under the control of military leader Yon Kaesomun in 642. Japan was ruled by a series of military rulers called shoguns beginning with the formation of the Kamakura shogunate in 1185. Latin America was the only region of the world where military dictatorships were common in the 19th century. The Spanish American wars of independence took place in the early-19th century creating new Latin American governments. Many of these governments fell under the control of caudillos or personalist dictators. Most caudillos came from a military background and their rule was typically associated with pageantry and glamor. Widespread attention to military dictatorship as a form of government developed in the 1960s as militaries seized power in several countries particularly in South America. A global reversal of military dictatorships began in the 1970s and 1980s when militaries increasingly gave up power in favor of civilian rule.

• 4. Economic Policies And Political Stability

  ›

  A photograph shows Ethiopian military dictator Mengistu Haile Mariam who ruled Ethiopia from 1977 to 1991. Military dictatorships are unique among regime types in that those in power often do not wish to remain so. The average military dictatorship lasts only five years and the average military dictator is only in power for three years. Military dictatorships struggle to build civilian bases of support through mass political participation or a partisan apparatus which limits the ability for a regime to establish a stable long-term government. When military dictators are toppled they are often succeeded by further military coups and new military dictators seizing power within the same regime. The most immediate threats to military dictators are the military officers that they depend on making long term stability difficult. Individual military dictators become more secure as they spend more time in office as they are able to shift power away from military institutions by creating civilian and paramilitary forces to keep them in check. Military dictatorships rarely see economic prosperity. Poor economic performance is dangerous to a military regime as it affects the regime's legitimacy and may even encourage the military to give up power. On rare occasions when they do see economic success it can result in the creation of a middle class. This shifts the political dynamic of the regime as the middle class demands more involvement in government.

• 5. Dissolution And Democratization Efforts

  ›

  A crowd during the end of the civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay in 1983 stands holding large banners. Many military officers will choose to end the military's involvement in politics if it appears to be having a negative effect on the military's cohesion its legitimacy or its interests. When politicization leads to factionalism it can weaken the military's hold on power and discourage leaders from further political involvement. Military rulers are more likely to negotiate and relinquish power willingly than other dictators as no opposing armed group exists to take power by force. They typically have the option to return to military life. The legitimacy of a military dictatorship is often contingent on the promise to step down once conditions have been established for a civilian government. Resistance can form against a regime that holds power beyond this point. A prosperous military dictatorship will see increasing calls to restore civilian government as the economy improves. Public rejection of military dictatorship in Africa significantly increased in the 1980s as pro-democracy protests took place across the continent. Democratization of military dictatorships became more common by 1995 when approximately half of the countries in Africa were democracies. Foreign influence is a common means to end military dictatorship and powerful countries can end a military regime by exerting diplomatic and economic pressure.

• 6. Use Of Force And Human Rights

  ›

  Several men in a line wear helmets and brandish rifles with bayonets representing military forces during the military dictatorship in Brazil. Relative to other dictatorships military regimes rely disproportionately on force in international relations. The individuals running a military dictatorship are more experienced in military means than political or diplomatic means and a lifelong career in the military leads to a military mindset among its leadership. Military officers are more inclined to view foreign relations as confrontational rather than diplomatic for the same reason. Military activity is seen as routine and military dictators are less likely to ascribe high cost to the use of military force. This is particularly true of military juntas where the military mindset of junior officers compounds this effect by applying increased political pressure. Conversely diplomacy is seen as higher cost as it may strengthen civilian control of the military. Human rights violations and state-sanctioned atrocities in military dictatorships are often carried out by these non-military security forces rather than by the military itself. Military dictatorships have been found to engage in torture more frequently than other regimes. Despite the heavy influence of military tradition military dictatorships are not necessarily more militaristic or more prone to external conflict. The use of military force internally restricts the ability to project it externally and vice versa.