Guarding the Guardians: Public Oversight as the Bedrock of Balanced Civil-Military Relations
Civilian rule is a bedrock of democracy. What role does public oversight and transparency have in preventing these abuses and restoring things when they get off track?
By Joseph Foti
When civilian-military relations make headlines, it is rarely a good news story. Indeed, from Africa’s “coup belt” to South Korea and the United States, there are signs that militaries are not only overstepping their bounds, but are increasingly being asked to overstep their bounds.
A bedrock component of democracy is that civilians are in charge of the military and that the military stays out of politics. This requires a balancing act. On the one hand, officers must follow the orders of the presiding civilian officer (such as the President or Prime Minister. On the other, the presiding civilian officer must avoid putting the military into situations that require it to take a side.
The unfolding drama in South Korea highlights this tension. President Yoon Suk-yeol declared martial law in early December of last year. This happened as his administration faced charges of corruption, although he claimed that “anti-state” forces were at work in the country. As he did so, however, reports suggested that military leaders dragged their feet, citing operational concerns. In doing so, generals thwarted a power grab, buying enough time for the parliament to block the martial law order in a late-night vote, sparing the country from a clampdown. Parliament later voted to impeach President Yoon, which led to his arrest in late January. The Corruption Investigation Office for High-Ranking Officials is currently leading a joint investigation with the military and police. In this case, the military served as a protection against an order that echoed the country’s recent past as a military dictatorship.
In the United States, during the first Trump administration (2016–2020), General Mark Milley publicly apologized for appearing in what was largely seen as “taking sides” in a civilian matter, when he accompanied the President for a photo session after clearing a public protest. As Trump returns to office, he has promised to use the military to carry out mass deportations and has not ruled out the use of military force to take over foreign territory. As a candidate, Trump also promised to use the military to quell civil unrest and to deal with the so-called “enemy from within.” While U.S. law prevents domestic use of the military for law enforcement, there are numerous loopholes he could use to achieve these ends, including around the state-level national guard units. If a president makes an unlawful order, military officers remain bound by law. But what will they do if asked to execute such a command, and are they even prepared to deal with the question of which orders are lawful? What was clearly resolved in South Korea may not be as easy to navigate in the United States.
What these two cases show is that it is easier to preserve democratic control of the military when rule of law is stronger and there is basic order. There is an issue of vicious circles: a coup (or civil war) is the strongest expression of weak rule of law, and corruption or weak rule of law is often the explicit justification for many coups. This argument spans decades, ranging from Chile (1973), Turkey (1971 and 1980), Egypt (2013), and Thailand (2014). Recent coups, like the one in Gabon, suggests that many foreign governments (and citizens) shrug when the military takes over after one of Africa’s longest-ruling families is deposed.
One might suppose that substituting a civilian-led dictatorship with a military-led dictatorship may actually help consolidate state capacity and public order. Yet one does not need to take this dim, Hobbesian view of the world. By contrast, Jeffrey Herbst and others have pointed out that a balance needs to be struck in promoting military capacity and promoting military restraint.
Open government approaches can help achieve this balance through public oversight. It does this through removing the opportunity for abuse, building in mechanisms for greater civilian control, and restoring civilian rule.
Removing the Opportunity for Abuse
The lesson in all of this is that “an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.” Trying to fix a problem once it has started leaves societies with an impossible choice. Rather, there are a number of reforms that can help prevent civil-military conflict.
- Transparency on permissible use of military force by the executive: Governments can begin by clarifying standards and procedures for the use of military force in domestic affairs. While military participation in civilian operations may be necessary in extreme circumstances, the public (and parliament) should have a clear understanding of when and how decisions are made to deploy such forces. Such standards should also be extended to all quasi-military bodies, such as state-level agencies or other militarized police forces.
- Parliamentary and judicial review: Other parts of government must have clearly established powers of review in cases of an alleged breach by the executive branch. Individuals, organizations, and communities harmed by such breaches also need to have clear remedies and rights of redress in court.
- Military standards of conduct: The public should know about the military’s own internal standards and processes for violations of peoples’ rights, including the outcome of such powers.
- Defense integrity and transparency measures: Security claims are often exaggerated and the public’s right to know how their military works is ignored. This leaves the sector rife for abuse and self-enrichment. This can contribute to democratic erosion when corrupt officers retaliate against accusations of corruption or when they become disproportionately powerful. A recent report by Transparency International Defense and Security highlights common abuses of power and best practices in countering these issues.
Building for Civilian Control
In a number of countries, control has been wrested away from civilian leaders, including in one OGP member. In a number of countries, active open government communities await promised elections and constitutional reform. In this situation, the options for repair are fewer and must be more strategic and medium-term. It is never hopeless, however.
Reforms under these circumstances may be more difficult to attain, but they can help pave the way for restoration. They include:
- Participatory constitutional processes: Often, a caretaker government established to restore democratic control may hold a participatory constitutional process. Guinea, for example, has been slated to have a new constitutional referendum for some time, although it continues to be delayed. International IDEA has guidance on how such processes could take place.
- Open elections: Ensuring that there is public monitoring of elections, being transparent about when they are called, and collecting and publishing open election data can be a core entry point. Recent elections in Thailand suggest that, however difficult, this type of reform can be possible.
Restoration of Civilian Rule
After civilian control is restored, security sector reform (SSR) is an approach that goes beyond training the military to include constructing strong institutions. One recommendation is ensuring that the legislature is ultimately responsible for oversight of the military.
Inclusive truth and reconciliation processes are another participatory approach to restoration. Such processes usually involve government and non-governmental actors. They identify human rights violations, corruption, and violence. The aim is to establish a historical record and to achieve healing and reconciliation. Examples range from Canada to Liberia and, perhaps, most famously, South Africa.
Finally, soldiers and civilians alike must be socialized that protecting democracy is everyone’s responsibility. This means ensuring that values are instilled through training on the sovereignty of civilian leaders, however flawed.
Conclusion
In an ideal world, we would avoid situations where militaries act illegally or are told to act illegally. But that is not the world we live in. Instead, we can make every effort to prevent these situations by combating corruption and, when these things do happen, quickly restore the rule of law.
