Military governments are common through out history the universe over. To avoid the ambiguity of seeking to embrace excessively much in excessively small, this essay will concentrate on some governments in South America, East Europe and in Asia. In the subsequent paragraphs, it will be seen that military putschs are normally the consequence of political instability, normally caused by politicians incapable of taking the state or because of a demand to contend an insurgence. It can besides ensue from instability brought approximately by strong polarisation due to external influences. All these conditions are easy identifiable to the current political state of affairs in Nepal and therefore do interesting instance surveies. It is besides seen that a military governments start out strongly by supplying political stableness and development activities, nevertheless, in the long tally, suffer from public disillusion and terminal suddenly, frequently conveying back political instability. Further, it will be hilighted, that democratisation of the armed forces is successful merely if it complements the democratisation of the state.

Asia is the largest and most thickly settled continent. It has, in its recent history, seen many military governments. Some of these governments are today seen as the biggest menace to western thoughts and therefore do intresting instance surveies.


The autumn of the Ottoman Empire resulted in the present twenty-four hours Iraq falling into the custodies of the British. The plebiscite of 1921 established Faisal I as the King of Iraq. WWII brought in a short lived pro-Nazi authorities under Rashid Ali. This was followed by decennaries of unstable political apparatus which included a Gallic mandated authorities followed by a King Hussein of Jordan supported sovereign. Inspired by Nasser ‘s motion in Egypt, a new moving ridge of political rebellion took over much of the Arab universe, and in Iraq, Brig Abd al-Karin Qasim and Col Abdul Salam Arif led a successful military putsch in 14 July 1958. Then followed a series of blackwashs, an air clang that killed the president and a few military putschs until the Ba’ath Party under Ahmad Hassan al-Baks became the president on 17 July 1968. He resigned and his replacement, General Saddam Hussein, took over the helms in July 1979. Saddam was ab initio seen as a pro-west leader.[ 1 ]In malice of all his lacks, Saddam criticizers today agree that Iraq had its longest term of stableness and regulation of jurisprudence under Saddam.[ 2 ]Saddam was eventually overthrown by the US led allied invasion in 2003 and peace still continues Iraq.


The licking of Pakistan in the 3rd war against India in 1971 led to the sezession of East Pakistan to give birth to Bangladesh. This led to the autumn of the military government. A civillian authorities under Zulfikar Ali Bhutto came to power in 1972. The elections of 1977 proverb Bhutto emerge winning but the resistance accused him of election fraud. In the subsequent political convulsion, General Zia-ul-Haq took over the state through a bloodless putsch. In the 1980s, Pakistan was a frontline province in the Cold War against the Soviet Union. As a consequence, the military government received significant US support. On 17 August 1988, Gen Zia died in an air clang. In the subseuent general elections in November 1988, Benezir Bhutto emerged the victor. Civillian authoritiess under Bhutto and Nawaz Sharif held power untill 1999.In the 1990s, the Pakistan authorities was one of the lone three authoritiess to recognize and back up the Taliban government in Afganistan. Nawaz Shariff won the 1997 elections with a immense border taking to his place being strong plenty to amend the fundamental law to extinguish all the cheques to the Prime mkinister ‘s power. President Farooq Leghri, military head General Jehangir Karamat and Chief Justice Sajjad Ali Shah were forced to vacate. In 1998, Pakstan tested its atomic bomb and the resultent countenances coupled with the Asiatic economic crisis brought about a steady economic diminution. On 12 October 1999, Shariff tried to disregard the new military head General Parvez Musharraf who was out of the state, but senior generals refused to accept his decession. In the attendant confusion, Shariff was arrested and Pakistan was one time once more under a military government. Musharraf undertook successful economic reforms and supported the US led Global War On Terror, endearing him to the West.


Bangladesh came into existance as an independent state in 1971 after sezession from Pakistan. Sheikh Mujibur Rahman, leader of the Awami League, took over the state under great personal popularity, but the state was plagued by detoriorating economic status and interrupting down of civil order. Criticism of Mujib grew and later he proclaimed a province of exigency in 1974 and curtailed many democratic rights. He was assasinated by dissatisfied mid-level ground forces officers in August 1975. From the consecutive military putschs emerged Army Chief of Staff, Gen Ziaur Rahman as Chief Militry Law Administrator in November 1976 withhin 19 points economic reform bundle. Zia was assasinated by military officers in May 1981, one time once more forcing the province into a political abysm. From the confusion rose Army Chief of Staff Lt Gen H M Ershad, who suspended the fundamental law, declared soldierly jurisprudence in March 1982 and ruled until his ejector in 1990. The period between 1990 and 2006 saw consecutive authoritiess under the Awami League led by Sheikh Hassina and the Bangladesh Nationalist Party led by Begum Khalida Zia. Wide dispersed corruptness led the President Iajjudin Ahmed disregarding the authorities and declaring a caretaker authorities that later charged both Sheikh Hasina and Begum Khalida Zia of orruption. On 29 December 2008, the state went to polls and the state has returned to normalcy since.

Dutch east indies

The Indonesian armed forces were a creative activity of the national battle for independency. The armed forces hence inherited a nucleus trained by the Dutch and the Nipponese colonial Masterss. Whilst those educated by the Dutch understood the demand to maintain the military non partisian in order to keep its proffessionalism, those that were educated by the Nipponese believed in politicization of the military[ 3 ]. Besides these groups, assorted other reservess involved in the freedom battle excessively united forces to represent the Indonesian National Army. The integrating of political cells into the national military ensured it retained its involvements in political relations[ 4 ]. In 1957 some elements in the military rebelled against the province with a declared purpose of controling spread of communism[ 5 ]. The rebellioneventually subsided in 1961. On 1 October 1965, Suharto took over the authorities as the representative of the armed forces. He ensured that he military was good represented in the legislative assembly and as governers and city managers.

Union of burma

The history of the Burmese military is similar to that of Indonesia. During WWII the Burmese people fought on both sides, depending upon their cultural groups. An cultural group known as the Karens fought for the British whilst the bulk Bamar cultural group fought aboard the Japanese. After WWII the Bamars along with many other cultural groups formed the Peoples Volunteer Group to contend the colonialism. The going of the British saw an eruption of cultural force along the WWII cultural divide and the armed forces was involved in suppresing the cultural rebellions. In this volatile and unsure political environment, General Ne Win took over the authorities and the state has been under military government of all time since.


Since Thailand adopted western manner constitutional monarchy in 1932, it has had legion military governments. The first putsch was staged in 1932 by the military wing of the 1932 radical group. The rise of communism in East Asia posed a menace to US involvements in the cold war epoch and as a consequence the Thai military governments in those yearss frequently received western support. The putsch of 1947, 1958. 1976 and 1991 are frequently described as undemocatic whilst those of 1932 and 1977 are said to be democratic.

Eastern Europe. Mikhail Gorbachev came to power in 1985 and initiated an economic and political reform bundle in the USSR known as the glasnost and perstroika. Its failure triggered a concatenation reaction that finally resulted in the decomposition of the Soviet Union into 15 democracies and impacting all East European states. The Polish non-governmental trade brotherhood known as the Solidarity was taking roots in the 1980s and easy took the form of an anti-communist motion. Though it was met with stiff opposition, the immense popularity of the Solidarity managed to coerce legal acknowledgment and subsequently won an overpowering bulk in the elections, ensuing in the first non communist authorities in a Warsaw treaty state in 1989 and the state shortly dropped communism. Hungary, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Bulgaria and Romania followed suite, stoping communism in East Europe. At the clip, Western Europe was already united under a powerful political and economic brotherhood known as the European Union. The new democatic provinces realized that their well being lay in fall ining this brotherhood. In June 1993, the EU formulated Copenhagen standards that established that the East European states could go members after satisying economic and political conditions[ 6 ]. The conditions read “ The state must hold stable establishments vouching democracy, the regulation of jurisprudence, human rights and regard for and protection of minorities. The state must hold a working market economic system and must be capable of defying the force per unit area of competition and market forces in the European Union. The state must be able to presume all the duties fluxing from rank, including the purpose of political, economic and pecuniary brotherhood. ” These conditions pushed the states to pass through to true and irreversible democracy. This passage was besides reflected in the armed forcess and to day of the month, there have been no military putschs in any of these states that one time had military led totalitarian ommunist governments.

South America

South America is a continent of 12 states, all of which at some clip hold had military swayers or dictators at the helm. Democratization started in 1959 with Venezuela. Surinam was the last South American state to ship upon democracy. However, democracy has been unable to decide the figure one job in South America – economic disparity ensuing from corruptness and extended drug industry. Hence political convulsion ever hangs in the clouds. The armed forcess of all these South American states have all returned to civilian control, but the prevailing conditions that have the possible for political convulsion can ask for the military into the political relations[ 7 ]. Hence South American states make interesting instance surveies for CMR.


Until 1929, Argentina was a comfortable state with the 4th highest per capita GDP. However, the Great Economic Depression of 1929 brought about an economic prostration. A weak economic system and disconnected political parties taking to internal struggles weakened the civilian authoritiess, making conditions for the military to step in. A military putsch supported by the Argentine Patriotic League brought Jose Felix Uriburu to power. This military government was characterized by persecution of the resistance, electoral fraud and corruptness. But the fright of the spread of communism spurred the military government. The state saw a speedy sequence of military leaders heading the authorities. The 1950s saw frequent military putschs, therefore break uping the military government. The elections of 1958 ushered in a civilian authorities under the Radical Political Party, led by Ricardo Balbin. However the left wing of this party left the assembly in support of the Juan Peron, badly sabotaging the authorities. This sliver group, led by Arturo Frondzi, won the presidential elections of 1958. This civilian authorities was once more ousted by a military putsch until fresh elections in 1963. This cat and mouse game between civilian leaders and the military continued until 1983, when the military eventually conceded power to a civilian authorities.


Bolivia declared independency from Spain in 1809. It saw 189 military putschs in its first 168 old ages as an independent state. It enjoyed great paces in political and economic promotion under Marshall Andres Santa Cruz between 1829-1839. Santa Cruz declared Bolivia a replacement to the Inca Empire, a move that was seen as a nuisance by other regional powers as it could take to territorial struggles. The Peruvians and the Chileans eventually defeated Santa Cruz taking to a period of about 60 old ages of putschs and counter putschs in Bolivia until increasing monetary values of Ag brought some economic alleviation to Bolivia and some political stableness in the late nineteenth century. Bolivian licking to Paraguay in the Chaco War ( 1932-35 ) and the attendant immense loss of lives and district discredited the traditional opinion elites, ensuing in the outgrowth of postulating political political orientations. Therefore started the Bolivian National Revolution ( 1952-64 ) from which the socialist tilting centers classed Revolutionary Nationalist Movement emerged winning. In 1964, President Paz Estenssoro was overthrown by the armed forces in a putsch. Bolivian political scene was thrown into a confusion of putschs, counter putschs and caretaker authoritiess until October 1982, when President HernAA?n Siles Zuazo came to power. Thereafter civilian authoritiess prevailed until 2000, when widespread protests against denationalization led to the authorities declaring soldierly regulation for a piece. Since so the armed forces has been on a regular basis employed by the Bolivian authorities to convey in political and economic stableness in the state.


In 1961, Janio Quadros, the president of Brazil resigned shortly after being elected, in a failed command at increasing his popularity. As per the fundamental law, his frailty president, Joao Goular, popularly known as Jango, was to win him. Jango, who was so on a trip to China, was accused of being a Communist by the right wing activists and prevented from taking office until 1963 ensuing in political pandemonium. On 1 April 1964, a US supported military putsch overthrew Jango. Along with rights misdemeanors, the military government was characterized by rapid economic growing. The anti rising prices plan of 1964-67 led to spectacular economic growing between 1968 to 1975[ 8 ]. The economic growing under the “ province capitalist economy, ” nevertheless, had a regressive income distribution profile. The province embarked upon powerful development plans on abroad adoption, taking to stultifying debt payments. This coupled with the galloping oil monetary values shortly led to economic stagnancy in the 1975-85 period. The turning voice of dissent against military misdirection of economic system toppled the military government to show in democracy in 1985. The democratic governments did non mend Brazilian economic sufferings, and it was non until 1999 that Brazil witnessed a modest economic growing.


Chile gained independency from Spain in 1818. During its first 1 and a half century as independent state, it had some signifier of democratic civilian regulation. However, failure to undertake economic disparity amongst the population, intercession by the CIA and KGB in the signifier of support of assorted political parties and increasing political consciousness led to destabilising of the state. In 1970 a Marxist leader, Salvador Allende Gossens, won the presidential elections. He was accused by the US of holding turned Chile, with the aid of the KGB, into a Soviet operations centre. From this convulsion arose General Augusto Pinochet with the putsch of 11 September 1973. Pinochet ‘s Draconian regulation lasted for 17 old ages until passage to democracy in 1990. Probes by the Valech Commission in 2004 unearthed broad spread misdemeanor of human rights by the military government, but the government was successful in pull offing the economic recovery[ 9 ].


From the confusion resultant out of the Napoleonic triumph over Spain, out of the Viceroyalty of Granada emerged a representative council to withstand Spanish regulation. Full independency from Spain was proclaimed in 1813. In 1819 the Republic of Greater Colombia was formed to include all the district of the former Viceroyalty ( Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador and Panama ) . Simon Bolivar was its first president. Francisco de Paula Santander was his frailty president. The followings of these two leaders had conflicting political visions taking to the formation of two political parties that have since dominated Colombian political relations. Bolivar ‘s protagonists formed the Conservative Party, seeking strong centralised authorities, confederation with the Roman Catholic Church and a limited franchise. Santander ‘s followings, formed the Liberals, seeking a decentralised authorities, province control over instruction and other civil affairs, and a broader right to vote. The republic adopted its present name of “ Republic of Columbia ” in 1886. Columbia ‘s political history in the nineteenth century and early twentieth century oscillated between democratically elected Liberal and Conservative authoritiess. But this history has been interrupted three times by military putschs – in 1830, in 1854 and more late in 1953-57. The state has returned to civilian regulation since 1958, but peace has been evading the state due to urban insurgence and drug wars.


Between 1865 and 1870, Paraguay fought a annihilating war with the combined forces of Brazil, Argentina and Uruguay. From it emerged a two party political system, Colorado and Liberal, that stands to this twenty-four hours. Between 1870 and 1954, Paraguay was ruled by 44 individuals, 24 of whom were forced from office. Riding on the propinquity of the military to the Colorado party and widespread disenchantment with the corrupt political governments, General Alfredo Stroessner overthrew the authorities in 1954 and ruled until 1989. The Stroessner government was really inhibitory of political resistance, but it opened up the state. The governments regime ushered in political stableness for the first clip in the state ‘s modern history. For the first clip in its history, the state undertook a major development undertaking in the signifier of the mammoth hydroelectric undertaking at Itapu on Rio Parana, which started in 1973. It is estimated that the cost of the undertaking was US $ 12 billion. The injection of this immense capital leap started the Paraguayan economic system and is ironically credited with the creative activity of a middleclass ensuing in the turning strength of the pro democracy motion[ 10 ]. Stroessner was ousted by a military putsch led by General Andrez Rodriguez in 3rd February 1989, who called for general elections on 1st May 1989. With the small readying clip for the resistance, it was no surprise that Gen Rodriguez won the election with 75.8 % of the ballots[ 11 ]. The new authorities relaxed limitations on democratic rights and civilian authoritiess have prevailed since so, although there has already been an unsuccessful effort at military putsch in 1996 by General Lino Cesar Oviedo.


In Uruguay, the military played a fringy function in the national political relations until the sixtiess. It was manned chiefly by people from people coming from low income households. The national economic system saw a serious downswing in the 1960s ensuing in public discontent that led to break of jurisprudence and order. The armed forces was mobilized to back up the constabulary and over clip took over greater functions in internal security, peculiarly in a counter insurgence run against a Marxist group known as the MLN-T. The ground forces crushed the insurgence in 1972 but the military leading believed that the state required the military to go on its run to forestall a Marxist return over of the state. By June 1973, the military had President Borddaberry suspend democratic rights and establish a inhibitory military regulation through the creative activity of the National Security Council[ 12 ]. The military tried to legalize the soldierly regulation by suggesting a new fundamental law that was refused through a referendum in 1980. This began a slow procedure of the detachment of the military from political relations. Protests against the military regulation in 1984 hastened the armed forces ‘s going from political relations and democracy has prevailed since so.


After its independency, Venezuela was mostly ruled by autocratic leaders for most of the nineteenth century. This period saw a series of putschs, civil wars and boundary line differences. On 18 October 1945, the Venezuelan military revolted to convey in a Broad authorities. On 24 November 1948, a military putsch led by Col Carlos Delgado Chalbaud overthrew the Broad authorities to show in a Conservative authorities. In 1951, the Liberals attempted an unsuccessful counter putsch. In a bloody putsch, the military ousted dictatorial President Marcos Perez Jimenez in January 1958. The military withdrew from direct engagement in national political relations and Venezuela enjoyed a repute as one of the more stable democracies of Latin America[ 13 ]. This composure prevailed until 1988 and the political relations was dominated by the Democratic Action and the Christian Democratic parties. In 1989 there was widespread bloody public violences. In February 1992, a military officer called Hugo Chavez led a failed military putsch and was later jailed. Another putsch in November 1992 by officers loyal to Chavez was besides unsuccessful. He was released in 1994 and won the presidential elections in 1998. In April 2002, there was another failed effort at military putsch to tumble Chavez, sponsored by the United States[ 14 ].


The experiences of these Asian, East European and South American states in the relation between administration and the military bring out many interesting lessons. Some of these have been discussed here.

Lesson 1: Military Coup d’etats can ensue from prolonged domestic convulsion.

Military putschs do non normally go on entirely due to the political aspirations of the military leading but are normally forced into national political relations by a concatenation of political and economic activities that undermine the state. The political convulsion that came out of the autumn of the Ottoman imperium in Iraq, brought in the military government. General Musharraf was thrust into power due to the surpluss of Nawaz Sharrif. Political convulsion in Bangladesh ushered in Erchad. Sharp economic autumn and weakening of the political leading due to infighting ushered in the military putsch in Argentina. The desolation of the Chaco War and the turning laterality of the collectivists in Bolivia were the grounds behind the success of the military putsch of 1964. Widespread disenchantment with corrupt governments led the success of General Alfredo Stroessner ‘s putsch in Paraguay in 1954. In Uruguay, a low profile armed forces was able to wrest the power in the early 1970s because of the menace posed by turning Marxism. The prevelent cultural convulsion led to Gen Ne Win taking over Burma in 1962.

Lesson 2: Military Coup d’etats can ensue from the vested involvements of external forces.

Military putschs can be successful if they receive strong support from the international community. This was peculiarly true in the Cold War epoch, when the CIA and the KGB competed over influence over impersonal ; states. This was true in the instance of the US supported military putsch on 1 April 1964 in Brazil and Augusto Pinochet ‘s putsch in Chile on 11 September 1973. Saddam excessively was seen as a pro-West leader. The Pakistani military governments survived because of Western support.

Lesson 3: Military governments will potray themselves as non partisian or as forestalling the constitution of unsafe political orientations in the state.

In the 1980s the Pakistani military government was seen as necessary to forestall spread of communism in South Asia. Geneal Musharaf justified his government by stating that it was necessary to forestall cardinal Islamists taking over the state. In South America, it was largely against communist return over. Saddam was long supported by the West as an ally against the Islamist Iran[ 15 ]. The military governments in most instances stated themselves as non partisian and in the long term involvements of the state. Hence, the military governments frequently start out as a fresh attempt to safeguard the state against a sensed immorality.

Lesson 4: Military Coups will convey in short term stableness and development.

By and large, the military governments, from their apprehension of military philosophies, understand that the key to keeping power is in winning over the impersonal population. Hence military governments focus in keeping jurisprudence and order and in economic development. The concatenation of events that followed a short sighted populist political move by Janio Quadros in 1961 has already been discussed above. These events badly destabilized Brazil and stableness reigned in merely after the military putsch of 1964. The military putsch besides ushered in economic reforms taking to dramatic economic growing between 1968 to 1975. Pinochet ‘s government, for all its ailments, was credited for the economic recovery of Chile. In Paraguay, the military authorities brought in a US $ 12 million mammoth hydroelectric undertaking at Itapu on Rio Parana, which started in 1973. It was instrumental in boot get downing the economic system at that place. In Uruguay, the military government was able to convey the state out of the Marxist insurgence. Even Saddam is credited with delivery in som stableness in Iraq.

Lesson 5: Democracies that follow military governments are normally unstable.

The vacuity created by tumbling autocratic military governments is normally destabilizing. The going of military government in Bangladesh in 1990 has non resulted in stableness in the state. Similarly, the going of Musharaf from Pakistan has non aided to the stableness of Pakistan. The toppling of Jose Felix Uriburu ‘s authorities, brought to power by a military putsch supported by the Argentine Patriotic League could non set up stable civilian authorities in Argentina and saw a speedy sequence of unstable authoritiess until the military one time once more took over in 1963. Although the military government ended in 1985 in Brazil, it took until 1999 for the state to happen stableness and post a modest economic growing.

Lesson 6: Democratization of the armed forces goes manus in manus with the democratisation of the province. A expression at the East European states such as Poland, Hungary and Romania show that when the authorities is working hard to run into democratic benchmarks, the armed forces will follow suite.

Lesson 7: Integrating political groups into a professional armed forces will pervert the military into a political establishment.

This was apparent in Indonesia. Whilst Indonesia was a Dutch settlement, it has western educated military leading that understood the ned to stay unpolitical to retain its proffessionalism. Later, with the integrating of the Japanese educated military forces who believed in military engagement in political relations and with the farther integrating of the political reserves, the Indonesian military shortly became an active perticipant in national political relations. The Burmese freedom combatants, who were integrated with the British trained Western minded military, managed to act upon the armed forces into taking the political centre phase.