Between politicisation and neutrality of armed forces in a democracy
Lt Gen. Z.U. Shah (retd)
We do not take an oath to a religion or an oath to a king or queen or tyrant or wannabe dictator. We don’t take to an oath to an individual. We take an oath to the constitution.
—Former Chairman of Joint Chiefs of Staff US Gen. Mark Milley
India has been fortunate that the armed forces have remained apolitical and neutral. This has, tragically, not been the case of our neighbours. Military meddling in the democratic processes of countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh and Myanmar has had profound and often detrimental effects on their political systems, civil society and overall governance. Military involvement has damaged democracy in these nations. Historical experience highlights the dangers of political involvement by military leaders. The military’s role in political upheavals or coups serves as a cautionary example, reinforcing the need for neutrality of the armed forces to protect democratic governance.
The political neutrality of the Indian armed forces is maintained through a comprehensive framework that includes constitutional principles, professional military culture, regulatory guidelines, accountability mechanisms and a focus on unity and mission objectives. These factors collectively contribute to ensuring that the military remains an impartial entity dedicated to serving the nation without partisan bias. Any politicisation of the armed forces would erode its core competence of being a professional instrument of the last resort and reduce it to a pliable entity, obeying orders of political masters, which may run counter to the constitution.
Pakistan has experienced several military coups since its independence in 1947. These interventions have been justified by claiming the need to restore order and stability. Prolonged military rule has weakened democratic institutions. Political parties have been marginalised, and civilian authorities were undermined. The military’s influence over the judiciary and media has curtailed democratic freedoms. There have been feeble attempts at restoration of democracy and although elections have occurred, they are often marred by allegations of manipulation and coercion. The military’s dominant role has created a culture where civilian governments have remained weak and ineffective.
Bangladesh had been more stable, until recently. In the past it had experienced military coups and interventions since its independence in 1971. The military often stepped in during periods of political instability. Military involvement has led to the erosion of political norms and democratic practices. The dominance of the military in political and economic spheres has sidelined civilian leadership. In recent anti-Hasina protests in Bangladesh, the Bangladesh Army played a controversial role. The army had been deployed in various capacities, including maintaining public order and assisting the police in managing demonstrations. There have been reports of heavy-handed response and clashes between protesters and security forces which resulted in violence and casualties. The role of the army in these protests is controversial. The military, initially, in conjunction with the police and Awami League storm troopers was involved in attempting to curb the movement. Later the military saw the writing on the wall and informed the Prime Minister that they would no longer act against their own citizens. This compelled her to resign and flee the country.
Myanmar has a long history of military rule, with the military (Tatmadaw) effectively controlling the government for decades until a semi-democratic transition in 2011. However, the military staged a coup in February 2021, reversing the democratic gains. The military’s return to power has silenced opposition and civil society voices, leading to mass arrests and violence against protestors. Freedom of speech and assembly has been severely curtailed. The military has been responsible for widespread human rights violations, particularly against ethnic minorities, undermining the principles of democracy and justice.
The neutrality of armed forces, in democratic countries, is vital for several reasons. When the military stays neutral, it can concentrate on its primary role of national defence and security without political distractions. Neutrality fosters healthy civil-military relations. It ensures the integrity, stability and proper functioning of democratic governance. A neutral military respects the supremacy of civilian governance and operates within a framework that upholds the law. This is crucial for maintaining a balance of power among different branches of government. Civilian authorities are accountable to the electorate, and a neutral military must not be so pliable, so as to enable violation of the constitution with impunity. It is essential for the military to hold political leaders accountable without overstepping its bounds, within the parameters of law.
A neutral military can be seen as a unifying force that represents all citizens rather than partisan interests, fostering trust and solidarity among diverse segments of society, especially in dealing with communal violence. The military is composed of individuals from diverse backgrounds and beliefs, and its culture promotes a sense of unity and teamwork. This diversity helps to foster an environment where political affiliations are set aside in favour of a shared commitment to service and mission.
There are several lessons to be learnt from the United States (US) military regarding supremacy of the constitution, neutrality and apolitical stance. After the 2020 election, President Trump and some of his supporters made unfounded claims of widespread voter fraud, leading to various efforts to overturn the election results. The situation escalated on 6 January 2021, when a mob stormed the US Capitol to disrupt the certification of the electoral vote, which prompted serious concerns about the stability of democratic processes.
The stellar role of US military leadership and their ‘Statement of Commitment’ with Chairman Milley’s public reaffirmation, was an assertion that the military would uphold the Constitution and follow only lawful commands. This statement emphasized a commitment to the democratic framework rather than to any individual leader. The armed forces have a strong code of conduct that emphasizes loyalty to the Constitution rather than to political leaders. This cultural underpinning is crucial in maintaining the apolitical nature of the military leadership.
The US military, very much like in India, operates under a doctrine that emphasises civilian control, the rule of law and constitutional fidelity. Milley’s insistence on these principles reinforced the military’s role as a stabilizing force. Milley’s actions aligned with democratic principles by ensuring appropriate boundaries between military involvement and political affairs, reaffirming the military’s subordination to civilian authorities. There is a rider—the military is subordinate but not subservient to civilian authority.
Milley’s declaration served as a deterrence against any attempts by former President Trump to mobilize the military for unconstitutional purposes or to use it to undermine democratic processes. His firm stance reassured lawmakers, military personnel and the general public that the armed forces would not participate in any illegal actions, thus maintaining public confidence in the democratic institutions. By upholding the Constitution, the military played a pivotal role in maintaining stability during a period of extreme political division and unrest.
This incident highlighted the broader implications of the legacy of the military’s constitutional role and the importance of military leadership’s adherence to democratic values, which can serve as a critical lesson for future governance. It re-established a precedent reinforcing the necessity for military neutrality, essential to safeguarding future democratic processes and ensuring that armed forces remain apolitical. This ensures that military decisions are based on strategic objectives rather than partisan interests. The important role in safeguarding against chaos rested with the top US military leadership. It would be worth examining the selection process of these stalwarts, who ensured they stood by their principles.
You must be logged in to view this content.