written by Ali Sarihan printable version send your friend

Tuesday, 15 November 2011

Niccolo Machiavelli, Immanuel Kant, and Alexis de Tocqueville see the military as an important part of a state. While realist Machiavelli adhered to the idea of a strong army being a necessity for a strong state, idealism’s two important philosophers Kant and Tocqueville approach armies from a rather democratic perspective and they defend that an army is important but not a key factor for a democratic state. On the other hand, Valerie Bunce (2003) argues that the mass mobilization and elimination of military forces from politics led to democratization in Eastern Europe. McFaul (2005) also asserts that mass mobilization was one of the most important factors in the democratization of Serbia, Georgia, and the Ukraine. In summary, both authors emphasize mass mobilization’s positive impact and the military's negative role in a democracy. Even though I agree with both authors, this paper will examine the opposing argument and will contend that the military has a positive impact and mass mobilization plays a negative role in a democracy.

In 1979, Ruhollah Khomeini returned to Iran after 15 years in exile to lead an Islamic revolution, and thereafter build the Islamic Republic of Iran. Overthrowing the existing political structure was not an easy task after the 37-year reign of the Shah and Khomeini's 15-year exile, but the huge support he received from the Iranian nation gave him the power necessary to lead a successful revolt in 1979. Khomeini became the voice of millions of Iranians, and he accomplished the task that the masses expected of him—he founded the Islamic Republic of Iran. Under the Shah's rule, Iran was more open to Western and modern values than when Khomeini came into power with his vision of an Islamic regime. The Islamic Republic of Iran does not have freedom of media, speech, conscience, nor does the nation allow real, competitive, transparent elections. All Iranian women must wear headscarves, regardless of whether they are Muslim, and the entire Iranian nation must pray, without exception. The Iranian government uses its power to ensure that the people obey these "orders from God." In summary, the contemporary Islamic Republic of Iran stands as one of the world's strongest anti-democratic states, and the nation holds its current place of power largely because of the mass mobilization that supported Khomeini’s Islamic Revolution. The army also supported Khomeini, but their role was much less than the mass protests against the Shah and support toward an Islamic regime. The Iranian people elected the current Iranian President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad; who is very strict and disrespectful of democratic values; to two terms, in 2005 and 2009. While individuals protested after the 2009 elections, they called for the election of another anti-democratic candidate, Ayatollah Akbar Hashemi Rafsanjani, rather than a democratic leader. 

Soviet Russia’s unchallenged dictatorial leader Vladimir Lenin presents another example of a leader who came to power with the aid of mass mobilization after the Bolshevik revolution in 1917. The Bolshevik revolution was a large movement grounded in civic demonstration. Lenin built a despotic and autocratic regime in Soviet Russia because of the success of the Bolshevik revolution. Lenin eliminated all connections with the Western world or democratic world, and isolated the Soviet nation from the rest of the world to prevent the Russian people from disobeying their despotic leaders. Lenin killed many innocent people because of their opposition to Lenin’s dictatorial rule.

As demonstrated above, mass mobilization may be successful in terms of democracy, but it does not always lead to a positive democratic state. The result largely depends on whether or not the people prefer nationalistic, regional, or economic powers to democracy. As I explained above, the Iranian people wanted an Islamic regime more than democratic leadership. The Soviet people wanted to live under a powerful leader and state, regardless of whether that state was democratic. Mass mobilization is not always anti-democratic, but it does not always lead to or defend democratization.

In contrast to publically spearheaded anti-democratic regimes, military commander Mustafa Kemal Ataturk dissolved Sultanism in 1922 and established the modern Republic of Turkey in 1923. Despite some flaws, with the advent of the Republic, Turkey has become a politically, socially, and economically democratic state. Ataturk built democracy in Turkey by first allowing the establishment of political parties and encouraging participation and public consent in Turkey. In addition, Ataturk established freedom of religion and gave people the right to dress as they pleased. Ataturk’s revolutions paved the way for a contemporary, modern, democratic Turkey.

In 2011, former Egyptian general Hussein Tantawi withdrew his support for the former dictatorial Mubarak regime when he ordered the Egyptian army to support democratic reformers on the streets instead of the Mubarak despotism. This support led to an Egyptian democratic revolution in a short time. Tantawi now serves as the chief of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces and is working to bring democratization to Egypt.

These last two illustrations provide examples of two military leaders who spearheaded democratization in their states by establishing a militaristic regime. Of course, many other nations have had negative experiences with the military’s role in establishing democracy. Military coups in Latin America and Africa created militaristic and despotic regimes because the military eliminated the rule of law and all political, social, and economic rights disappeared. The rule of law was replaced with the rule of new autocratic rulers.

In conclusion, mass mobilization generally supports democracy and militaristic power often leads to anti-democratic states. Occasionally, however, circumstances occur when the opposite is true and militaristic power leads to the establishment of a true democracy. In these situations, change was led largely by the desires of the people. Hence, military forces should work to protect against any likelihood of anti-democratic movements. If Iran had a strong democratic army, it could have prevented the Islamic revolution. Lastly, a strong democratic state should be grounded in a strong civic society, and should have the support of a strong army that serves as a supporter and protector of democracy.


*Ali Sarihan, Georgetown University, Department of Government.