EAI Fellows Program Working Paper Series No.31

저자

Prof. Dr. Aurel Croissant is Professor of Political Science and Director of the Heidelberg Institute of Political Science. His main research interests are Comparative Analysis of political structures and processes in East- and Southeast Asia, the theoretical and empirical analysis of democracy, civil-military relations, terrorism and political violence.

Aurel Croissant has published 15 monographs and edited volumes and over 100 book chapters and journal articles in German, English, Spanish, Korean and Indonesian. His articles have appeared in refereed journals such as Party Politics, Democratization, Politische Vierteljahresschrift, Contemporary Southeast Asia, Asian Perspective, Electoral Studies, Studies in Conflict and Terrorism, Terrorism and Political Violence, Zeitschrift für Internationale Beziehungen, Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft, Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft, Asian Journal of Political Science, and Japanese Journal of Political Science.

Abstract

In recent decades, several nations in East Asia have transitioned from authoritarian rule to democracy. The emerging democracies in the region, however, do not converge on a single pattern of civil-military relations as the analysis of failed institutionalization of civilian control in Thailand, the prolonged crisis of civil–military relations in the Philippines, the conditional subordination of the military under civilian authority in Indonesia and the emergence of civilian supremacy in South Korea in this article demonstrates. The article argues that both structural and agential factors loom high in the evolution of post-transitional civil military relations. However, structural contexts cannot completely explain if a new democracy will establish civilian control over the armed forces. Rather, the ‘political entrepreneurship’ of civilian decision-makers plays an important role to account for the diverging patterns of civil-military relations. In Korea and Indonesia it was strategic action, prioritization, timing and careful sequencing by civilians, who took advantage of upcoming opportunities, and utilized them for restructuring civil-military relations, which has enabled civilians in Korea and Indonesia to overcome past legacies of military intervention into politics. In Thailand, on the other hand, civilians overestimated their ability to steer the military through robust action, thereby, provoking the military’s intervention. In the Philippines, consecutive civilian governments forged their “symbiotic relationship” with military elites, which allows civilian rule to survive. At the same time, however, military officers demand material rewards, political influence on the government, and expanded decision-making powers as quid pro quo, while protecting its institutional well being. In all four cases, the evaluation of civil-military relations has far-reaching consequences for the prospects of national security, political stability and democratic consolidation.

There is nothing obvious or inevitable about the subordination of

the armed forces to the wishes and purposes of the political leadership.

― Eliot A. Cohen, The Supreme Command.

Introduction

Over the past 25 years, East Asia has seen numerous transitions from authoritarian rule to democracy . Democratic transitions have taken place in the Philippines (1986), South Korea (1987), Mongolia (1990), Thailand and Taiwan (1992), Cambodia (1993), Indonesia (1999) and East Timor (2002). Even though most scholars generally agree that these democratizations have contributed to a decline of the political power of the armed forces , as is also testified by the stability of civil-military relations in most authoritarian regimes as well as a decreasing frequency of military coups and military regimes in the region, there are ample signs to suggest that the military is still a crucial political force in many countries. Furthermore, the September 2006 coup in Thailand and approximately ten attempted-but-failed military coups in the Philippines since 1986 indicate that in this part of the world, ‘the military coup is not a problem of the political past, but a continuing danger, even for electoral democracies that have persisted for over a decade’(Barracca 2007,138).

Figure 1. Frequency of Military regimes and Military Coups in Asia (1950-2011)

* Numbers of coups (attempted and successful) are calculated with data from the “Global Instances of Coups”, collected by

Powell and Thyne (2011). The main source for data on military regimes for the period 1960-2003 is Hadenius and Teorell (2006). Backdating the starting years of regimes to 1950 and continuing the data for the period 2004–2010 by the author. In order to avoid multiple observations per country year, all hybrid military regime types were classified as military regimes. A list of all cases, replication data and appendices are available at http:// www.uky.edu/*clthyn2 or can be found in Hadenius and Teorell”s Appendix B. Asia includes PR China, Taiwan, Japan, North Korea, South Korea, Mongolia, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Sri Lanka, Bhutan, Nepal, Brunei, Burma/Myanmar, Cambodia, East Timor, Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore, Thailand, South Vietnam, North Vietnam (Vietnam).

Democratization in other countries also has seldom meant de-politicization of the military or full-fledged civilian control. Civil–military relations in East Timor, while not as unstable as in the Philippines or Thailand, are also strained. In Indonesia, the armed forces (TNI, Tentara Nasional Indonesia) after more than ten years of democratic reforms still play significant roles in local politics, internal security, and the national economy, and enjoy a considerable degree of autonomy from civilian oversight in the post-authoritarian period. Even South Korea and Taiwan—generally considered by most observers as success stories regarding democratic consolidation and the democratic reform of civil-military relations (Croissant 2004; Kuehn 2008; Woo 2011:2)—have struggled with de-militarizing government apparatuses and the political decision making process, dismantling the political management system which formed the backbone of the civil-military system under the authoritarian order, creating robust, credible and functioning civilian institutions of civilian oversight, institutionalizing civilian infrastructure beyond the government apparatus, and developing strong civilian capacities to manage the security sector. Only in Mongolia, civilians were able to fully institutionalize democratic control within the first ten years after the demise of authoritarian rule. In many new democracies in the region, the quest for civilian control remains high on the political agenda (Alagappa 2001; Beeson and Bellamy 2008; Chambers and Croissant 2010; Croissant and Kuehn 2011).

What Civilian Control Is … and What Is Not

Traditionally, civilian control has been implicitly defined as the lack of military coups and military rule or, alternatively, a low risk for such events (Edmonds 1988, 93; Croissant et al. 2010, 954). The problem with this negative definition of civilian control is that coups are only the tip of the iceberg. It does not capture other more nuanced forms of military influence that are potentially no less harmful for civilian rule than the military coup, such as military control over “reserved domains” (Valenzuela 1992), “vertical prerogatives” (Pion-Berlin 2003), the encapsulation of military internal affairs from civilian intrusion, and the dependence of democratic governments upon the military to carry out security and development operations inside the territorial borders of their nations. To avoid the “fallacy of coup-ism” (Croissant et al. 2010) it is necessary to describe civil-military relations not in terms of dichotomy but in those of a continuum of distribution of decision-making power between civilians and the military (see also Welch 1976, 2; Desch 1999:6).

So, how, precisely should civilian control be defined and conceptualized? In a couple of recent article, Croissant et al. (2010, 2011a) have proposed the definition of civilian control as “that distribution of decision-making power in which civilians have exclusive authority to decide on national politics and their implementation. Under civilian control, civilians can freely choose to delegate decision making power and the implementation of certain policies to the military while the military as no decision-making power outside those areas specifically defined by civilians. Furthermore, it is civilians alone who determine which particular policies, or aspects of policies, the military implements, and the civilians alone define the boundaries between policy-making and policy-implementation”(Croissant et al. 2010, 955)...(Continued)