Soldier and Politics

Soldier and Politics

Introduction

Sociological analysis of the role of the armed forces in civilian society tends to oscillate between reductionism and autonomy. A certain form of reductionism, of Marxist origins, regards the armed forces as executors of the interests of the dominant classes. If the state is the "executive committee" of the dominant classes, the military is their "subcommittee," even when there is antagonism between the upper classes and the military or when a prominent figure among them is ruling.

Karl Marx, in his essay, on the coup d'état, of 18 Brumaire (November 9-10) 1799, in which Napoleon Bonaparte became first consul of France, suggested that when social conflict is intense, and the capacity of the bourgeoisie to establish its hegemony in a legitimate form eroded, the field of action opens up for an independent political leader—often from the military—to mobilize the masses. Although this new leader justifies his actions as an effort to overcome conservative or moderate forces, the desire to control the masses through personal leadership, charisma, or dictatorship is the true motive. According to Marx, this scenario was typical of the last stages of the capitalist system, when the impending revolutionary conditions made business as usual impracticable in the political sphere.

This concentrate on the kinds of contradictions among the upper sectors of the social pyramid that may increase the likelihood of independent military action. One can also argue that military interventions do not derive from the prevalence of authoritarian attitudes among officials of the armed forces but from unsettled contradictions between civilian groups. Civilian groups appeal to the military and thereby encourage them to take the path to power.

The antireductionist approach treats the military like any other social group—with its own interests, attitudes, and culture—vying for power with the rest of society. This group may be united or divided into factions. Democratic or authoritarian attitudes may prevail within it, either enabling a democratic polity to thrive or destabilize its institutions. In this connection, this study will attempt to provide an in-depth discussion regarding the role of soldiers in politics.

Discussion and Analysis

Politics as Public Morality

These elements of politics are also what scholars mean, explicitly or implicitly, when they talk about politics. David Easton (1965) called politics “the authoritative allocation of values” (p. 96). Harold Lasswell (1958) described politics in similar terms as demonstrated by his book title Politics: Who Gets What, When, and How. Clearly, these definitions beg the question, hidden beneath the young soldier's disapproving views of politics: Who decides these outcomes? How do we decide who decides? Who holds decision makers and rule enforcers accountable for doing so fairly? What is fair? What are the mechanisms of power and influence that shape the manner in which we make allocations and the sets of winners and losers in the process? How do allocations become authoritative? Who decides, and what values are in play when there are conflicts over who should get what, when, and how? These questions take us to the first order of politics, that of ...