Synopsis 2: Morris Janowitz: The Military in the Political Development of New Nations

In analyzing the role of the military in new nations, two different aspects can be analyzed."First, what characteristics of the military establishment of a nation facilitate its involvement in domestic politics[.]Second, what are the capacities of the military to supply effective political leadership for a new nation striving for rapid economic development and social mobilization[.]" (Janowitz, p. 77) In these two areas we can gain further inside in to the role of the military in developing nations. What makes the military of new and developing nations different from that of older and well established nations? In well developed nations, the role of the military is greatly diminished."Where mass democracy has emerged, the intervention of the military establishment in domestic politics has become limited."(Janowitz, p. 78). Similarly, within communist regimes, the power of the military becomes neutralized by the power of the regime. However, in both the case of democracy and communism, the military remains an important force in the area of influence of foreign affairs. There are three basic models of civil-military relations that can be used in comparing nations: aristocratic, democratic, and totalitarian. In the early history of Western Europe, most militaries were predominately aristocratic. The social hierarchy already in place in the country placed the elites at the top of the military system. The elites in charge of the military were the same ones that held positions of responsibility in society and business. Due to the lack of specialization and unprofessional nature of the military of that time, aristocratic rule was possible.

The democratic model is marked by strong differentiation between the civil and the military elites. The civil rulers use a formal set of rules to control the military. The military refrains from involvement in domestic affairs, and only comes in to action in the foreign affairs when so instructed by the civil leadership. In democratic model places importance in the professional nature of the military, and encourages the military to follow the desires of the state in all actions. The democratic model has only been "achieved in certain Western industrialized countries, since it requires viable parliamentary institutions and broad social consensus about the ends of government. The democratic model assumes that military leaders can be strongly motivated by professional ethics, and this objective is most difficult to achieve during periods of sustained conflict." (Janowitz, p. 80)

The totalitarian model follows the aristocratic model in cases where the democratic model doesn’t develop. The military is controlled by an authoritarian one-part political system. Often a secret police is also used to enforce decisions of the regime. The military officers are marked by a professional support to the carrying out of the party’s defense policy, however, his involvement in domestic affairs is very minimal. These types, however, are inadequate for describing the military as it exists in today’s developing nations. Today, there are five basic topologies used to identify the different civil-military relationships in the newer nations: "1)authoritarian-personal control, (2) authoritarian-mass party, (3) democratic competitive and semi-competitive systems, (4) civil-military coalition, and (5) military oligarchy." (Janowitz, p. 81) In the first three topologies, the military’s participation in domestic affairs is minimal."As such, the officer corps is not involved in domestic partisan politics but functions as an institution symbolizing the independent and legitimate sovereignty of the new nation." (Janowitz, p. 81)

The first type, the authoritarian-personal type is often found in countries just beginning the process of modernization, where the power is rooted in one man’s personal power. If control is rooted in the control by a one-party state, topology 2, authoritarian-mass party control, will be in place. The military may be poorly develop and often finds itself ‘competing’ with the police and other paramilitary institutions. Where the military is limited in function due to the strength of competitive democratic institutions in the state, the civil-military relationship can be described by topology 3, democratic-competitive. Often this system develops due to the constraints placed on the military during prior periods of colonial rule. The last three types are marked by strong military influence in domestic affairs. In type four, civil-military coalition, the military serves as a bloc in support of certain political groups. In this topology, the military may even be required to establish a temporary government in its continuing role as umpire in the disputes of the various competing political factions. The military’s involvement in domestic affairs can lead to topology 5, military oligarchy. In this type, the military is the ruling body. They exercise control of and suppress the civilian groups. A sixth theoretical type may also be developed as the military attempts to select a new government (either made up of its own personnel or others) to continue the domestic development of the new society.

The historical and economic factors can be analyzed to observe factors that contributed to the development of each of the different types of civil-military relationships."Historical background involves two crucial aspects: differences in cultural-geographic area and variation in the natural history of the armed forces." (Janowitz, p. 85) The countries are grouped in to three large cultural-geographical categories: (1) South and Southeast Asia, (2)Middle East and North Africa, (3) Sub-Sahara Africa. In South and Southeast Asia, the original military institutions were for the most part eliminated, transformed, or replaced by the colonial forces. The developed from a strong history of colonial rule. However, this colonial rule was not marked by extensive military involvement in domestic affairs (aside from the Japanese colonization.)

In the Middle East, the indigenous military institutions were not eliminated or transformed, but were instead modernized to keep up with the modernization of the entire state. The tradition in this region, remaining from the Ottoman empire gave the military a strong role in the political affairs. Even with the modernization and the beginnings of professionalization of the military, this influence remained, and the military officers had the tendency to involved themselves in the basic political affairs of the state. In Sub-Sahara Africa, the colonists destroyed the native military forces. The colonies were ruled with the aid of only very small armed forces (except during periods of major conflict.)They achieved independence without a large-scale revolution or violence. Thus these nations have the need to create brand new military institutions where none had existed previously. These various geographical classifications help to explain the varying degrees of military involvement in the states. In the Middle-East, the military is heavily involved in politics today. In Asia, "four armies have politically expanded roles, while the other eight have limited roles (Janowitz, p. 88). In Africa, the role of the military is reflected by its newness, and its limited resources to draw from.

The type of military can also be classified in four different types according to the different

colonial practices that were in effect during the period of colonization and liberation. In the first type, the countries never experienced colonial rule, thus the armies were a direct result of the internal growth. However, the number of newly developing militaries in this group is very small. Other groups have a much larger number of military bodies. Such groups can be classified according to the time of formation of the basic military body in effect today asex‑colonial, national liberation, and post‑liberation. These different types have arisen out of the different practices employed by different colonizers, and even different actions by the same colonizer (i.e. Britain) in different colonies. The British sought to develop the indigenous officer corps for a future of self‑leadership. Thus, they gave a greater deal of autonomy and self control to their officers. Thus, in former British colonies, ex‑colonial armies frequently developed. Other countries, however, did not foresee a period of termination any time in the future, thus they provided for little self rule and military involvement on the part of the indigenous populations. The type of colonial rule in sub‑Sahara Africa, however, led towards post‑revolutionary armies. The colonizers did not attempt to build up the indigenous officer corps in these countries. There was very little military buildup in these regions. Only during the period immediately

before independence did the colonizers begin to build up the armies of the colonies. Thus, these ‘new’ militaries are much more intermingled with the political affairs of the country. On the other hand, an army built up by the British would be more professional, and only enter in to the political arena when it was absolutely necessary. The length of time in which a country has had autonomous freedom is also a key factor in determining its civil-military relations. The longer that a country has been independent, the greater the likelihood that the military will assume control.

The size of the nation is also an important to consider. While some nations, such as India, Indonesia, and Pakistan; are huge, the majority of all new nations are small, with populations under 4 million. The different populations result in widely different needs and sizes of the military establishment. Economic factors can also be analyzed in the various military establishments."New nations with the most modern technology are likely to have the most efficient military establishment" (Janowitz, p. 93) However, the Gross Domestic Product of a country does not seem to impact the size of the military. Most countries seem to view the military as a fixed necessity. Whether small or large, the country will allocate a certain percentage of it’s expenses to the buildup and support of a military. New countries tend to be required to spend a disproportionate percentage of their income on military expenditures. It was theorized that the level of authoritarian rule in a country would decrease with the development of the economy. Whiles studies have produced data somewhat following the trend, there were many anomalies which make the hypothesis unreliable."Thus, factors such as natural history of origin, time since independence, or level of economic development supply, at best, a limited point of entrance for understanding differences in the political role of the military in the new nations.(Janowitz, p. 99)

Most nations start with a traditional peasant-based society. Only through the colonialism did the societies break from their deep held traditions. Furthermore, a second assumption concerning the military is that the "goals of an organization supply a meaningful basis for analyzing it bureaucratic structure." (Janowitz, p. 102) The military structure is similar to any other large scale bureaucracy. However, it has many key differences, due primarily to the permanent reality of violence to which it is faced. Thus, its uniqueness lies in the necessity that it be prepared at all times to carry out the management of violence. As technology changes, so does the military organization. Most new countries have relatively low levels of technology, similar to that of World War II. Thus due to their low level of technology, they also have an organizational structure similar to that which was in practice during the World War II rime period. The military in new countries has the ability to intervene in domestic affairs due to "its control of the instruments of violence; its ethos of public service and national identification; and its skill structure which combines managerial ability with a heroic posture." (Janowitz, p. 104) Officer corps in new nations are limited by the skill structure and their career lines. Social recruitment and education in new nations generally comes from the rural lower and middle classes. Furthermore the professional and political ideologies in new nation are generally dominated by strong nationalism, and a desire to have widespread government involvement in many aspects of the developing of the society. However, they still distrust politicians. The level of social cohesion also determines the ability of the military to intervene in political affairs. During political interventions, the military must developments its political apparatus outside of itself in order to continue the political control of the country.

The role of the military in the management of violence is often used as a method of explaining the importance of the military in civil affairs. However, very often the military is able to influence the affairs of the state without resulting to significant uses of the management of violence. Thus, it appears that there is something even deep and more inherent to the nature of the military which allows it to peroform its function in theaffairs of the state. The military function is highly organized andunified in purpose, while the civilian side is fragemented and has to dealwith a variety of concerns. Furthermore in new nations, the majority ofthe military is made up of ground forces (whereas in nations such as theUnited States, the ground force makes up only about one third of the totalmilitary strength. Because these forces are primarily ground based, they can easily be employed in major urban centers of population. The expierience of the military in major coinflict also contributes to its professional nature and strength today. Armies that fought in World War II had the advantage of real battle experience. However, the application of that experience in present day affairs depends on the degree to which the army contained indigenous as opposed to colonial officers. Countries that had just a small percentage of their natives serve in the military at the time of major conflict had small advances, while those with greater participation were more advanced. furthermore, participation in other wars of liberation and guerilla warfares also aided the military. However, while some wars help to unify the military, some have resulted in fragementation as the nation develops different regioinal centers of military strength. Both military defeat and success serve as a motivation for military unification and intervention. "Althoug numerically speaking, in new nations military success has preceded intervention in domestic politics more frequently than has military defeat." (Janowitz, p. 112)

The very nature of a new country contributes to its need for military involvement domestically. The borders need to be defended and thus the military must be involved in this action. However, the internal affairs of the country must also be stabilized, thus contributing to the need for military involvement in the domestic affairs to provide stabilization. These special forces can be used to fight insurrections that are likely to occur under a new regime.

The military generally serpeates itself from the day to day peacekeeping efforts undertaken by the police. Thus, leads to more force when the military does choose to intervene in the political affairs of the state. Since they are not normally involved in these affairs, their involvements serves as an extra shock force markin gthe intervention as importance. However, when the country is ruled by a military oligarchy, the military’s role becomes much more closely tied to the internal activites. The military’s strength in the management of violence has little strength for the long turn rule of a country. The military’s organizational structure provides many key elements that can be transfered directly to domestic organization. However, "the military profession in new nations has important limitations in producing those leadership skills in bargaining and political communications that are required for sustained political leadership." (Janowitz, p. 116) There are however, certain members of the military profession that are likely to have more skill and experience in the domestic field of affairs. Militaries can be analyzed asccording to their internal division of labor in three main groups: the heroic leader, the military manager, and the military technologist. All three rolse are important for a well functioning military. The rise tro importance of the military manager group is usually marked by an increase in the armies ability ot enter in to domestic affairs."Political leaders are men who specialize in verbal skills and in mass appeals. In contrast to military officers, they are men who are socialized early into the technique and process of negotiation and bargaining."(Janowitz, pp. 188-119) The military does however have a strong sence of public service that can aid in its involvement in political affairs.

The military of a new nation serves as a manifestation of its legitamacy. Furthermore, in many new nations, the military service seems incompatable with the standard religious practice of the region. Thus, often the military leaders are without strong religious convictions, unlike the western world, where religios influence is very important. This leaves out one of the ties between domestic involvement and military sergvice. The military is highly organized, and generally service therein follow a specific pattern.. An officer who has followed a prescribed career has followed the ideal pattern of military involvment. He has been schooled in the propper functions and has received the training and experience that is expected. An adaptive career, results from aditional and unusual activities. In analyzing American officers, it was found that "the adaptive career was linked to strong personal motication which led officer to associate themselves with experimental weapons."(Janowitz, p. 122.)In Germany, the officers that followed an adaptive career tended be strongly pro or anti-Nazi, while those who follwoed the standard career were by and large nuetral. Thus by following an adaptive career, an officer is more likely to be a mover and ahker in the armed forces. New nations also tend to vary from the established western nations in their patterns of social recruitment. In the new nations, the military is recruited primarily from the middle and lower-middle-class groups. There is not the strong aristocratic and upper-class influence that appears int he modern western nations. This is almost directly obvious since the systems present in thenon-western nations did not have the fuedal structure that would support such an inheritance and class-based system. Even the new nations that had aristocratic structures were very quick to establish direct professional involvment in the military.

The colonization of the regions also tended to reduce the strngth of the aristocracy in many regions, especially in Southesat Asia. Aristocratic groups were only recruited in to the military becuase of their agreement with the colonizers beleifs, and stances against rebellious parties. Thus the ‘elite’ in colonial militaries tended to be ‘foreign’ elite, that would help ward off any nationalistic movements in the colony. Most sons of established families found better opportunites in non-military service. The colonizers often recruited their enlisted and officer troops from remote and diverse areas. These people were generally poorer, and thus tended to be more attracted to the military. Militaries which arose to carry out a nationalistic movement also tend to m\be made up primarily of middle and lower-middle class peoples. The nationalistic movements rarely attract the upper classes, who are generally content with society the way it is. After a nation acheives its independence, nations whose military is made up primarily of ethnic groups try to balance it out by attracted members from all parts of the country. Recruitment continues to be of more a civil-service type as in attempt to provide diverse and unbiased military. However, even in highly organized recruitment systems, the sons of officers have a distinct advantage. In new nations, the military forces tend to come from the middle classes and from the rural areas. They also tend to come from families that have served in the civil aservices. Their parents may be government job holders, military men, or teachers. However, even with this background, they tend not be as conservative as would be expected. The military thus sees many urban developemnts as negative. However, it sees technology in a highly positive light. The military profession, is in new nations as well as old held in moderately low esteem. However, even with its low status, it is seen by many of the lowerclasses from the hinterlands as an avenue towards an upwardly mobile career that they can enter.

New nations’ militiaries tend to be highly nationalistic and xenophbic. It tends to be anticommunal. Furthermore, it tends to be puritanical and desire that society can too employ its hard-working values. They tend to be hghly moralistic. They also tend to accept collective social action for the acheivement of goals, and thus tend to have a leftist orientation. Finally, and perhaps the most important characteristic of the new military is its strong anti-political sentiment. The military loates politicians and sees itself as above politics. The military thinkgs that there is a simple solution to all problems, and sees the constant debate and compromise of the political arena as highly innefectual.

The strong cohesiveness of a military leads to its effectiveness in intervening in political affairs. This cohesiveness also allows them to stop when they have accomplished their goals, and hand the leadership over to the civilian rulers. An incohesive military group will, however, often fall victim to counter coup d’etats. Nassar’s success in Egypt was a result of strong military cohesion."Social cohesion requires that primary-group solidarity operate to integrate the larger organization. Social cohesion in the military requires effective procedures for assimilating new personnel, meaningful authority and sanction systems, allocation of equitable rewards and promotions, and a sense of organizational purpose."(Janowitz, p. 146) Military activity is a life-consuming endeavor, and the unification of living work and community create a total involvement. However, this involvement is somewhat less in the new nations, where military strength is often taken up in many small units spread across the nation. The process of assimilation and indoctrination is a continual one, with the newer and less experienced officers tending to have a lesser strength of identification and indoctrination than the more seasoned veterans. New nations also have a problem with advancement. Since the militaries were generally created with one giant increase in enrollment, the officer corps tends to filled with many men of the same age. Without an effective system of advancement and retirement, the younger officers feel disenfranchised with their limited chance of mobility. However, some nations, such as Israel, with its high growth economy can alleviate these problems by encouraging early retirement and assimilation in to civilian culture. Others, however, must find a way to encourage rotation and advancement to prevent cleavage from developing among the officers. Militaries can also gain strength through common experiences and separation from police forces. However, other areas can lead to cleavage. Officers trained in conventional warfare, and those in guerrilla units can have their differences. Also the development of other branches of armed services, such as navies and air forces can lead to cleavage. Finally, personal conflict and personality can also be a factor which leads to cleavage in the military. Economic Factors

The economic factors involved with the creation and maintenance of a military are vitally important. A nation must face the question of opportunity costs. A military that demands a great deal of expenditures (especially compared to the usual minuscule size of a new countries economy) must justify its existence. Would the money being spent on the military be much better invested in civilian programs to promote the development of the new state? The military can attempt to justify itself through the technical training that it provides for society. The military trains people so that they might complete various tasks that they would be unable to complete had they not been able to receive the training in the armed services. However, the degree to which this training is transferable to civilian activities is minimal. Furthermore, its influence has decreased steadily in recent years.

Other nations, such as Burma, use their militaries to promote direct economic involvement in endeavorsranging from manufacturing to retail operations. Experience gained in the military can be transferred to both the private and public sectors in various management positions. The military can also preform public works, ranging from new, unconventional developments, to disaster relief. The economic influence and clout of the military is directly related to its ability to intervene politically in the country’s affairs. It’s tradition of public service gives it a clear-cut advantage and ability to enter in and to oversee the affairs of the country. However, in all areas of economic leadership, the military has some key weakness. It can not devote itself wholeheartedly to economic activities, because that will weaken it in its primary goal. Furthermore, the military leaders are inexperienced in all that needs to be done for effective economic leadership. Agricultural reforms have an interesting history in military affairs. The military generally has a gradual approach to land reforms. The goal is to breakup the large estates and to give the land to the peasants. However, increases in agricultural production are generally quickly offset by increases in population. Thus new countries are quick to institute plans for birth control and family planning to curtail the populations. In Indonesia, the military attempted to nationalize the agriculture industry. This produced poor results and military management was both limited and ineffective.

Economic improvements by military regimes are generally minuscule or nonexistent. Often any economic advantage achieved is offset by an increase in military expenditures. It can be generalized "that the wider the sphere of economic involvement, the less effectively is the military able to perform... In tasks of managing wide sectors of the economy, or supplying central economic direction, it suffers from both the limitations inherent in the profession and sheer deficits of personnel resources." (Janowitz, p. 156) Thus the military provides to be ineffective at economic change. The military, however, argues that it’s role is more than simply that of direct economic achievement. It also provides for the development of a since of national identity and experience for members of the society. The military tasks tend to be high anxiety tasks, yet the military provides the recruit with the forces to deal with this anxiety and to grow. Only a few nations (Israel, Turkey, and Thailand) have universal military service. In most countries, the military service is voluntary and optional. Military service my help to build morale for a few (especially the "small, alert, and politically sensitized middle class" (Janowitz, p. 159). However, in most nations entertainers or sports heros are seen as more important. Only in newly liberated countries, or those countries with disputed borders to the military officers enjoy a high degree of popular admiration. Modernity

The study of the development of political-military relations in new nations assumes that the nations want to become modern.; however, we are faced with developing a definition for the modernity in which we are searching. Many symbols may be used, however, it appears that a the universal goal for modernity is an increased standard of living and increased economic activity. Leaders speak of modernization, but mention terms such as industrialization and urbanization almost never."But to modernize the economy of a new nation, it is necessary to develop mass participation in new forms of social organization, ranging from village co-operatives to professional associations." (Janowitz, p. 160) This is "social mobilization."TheThe leadership needs to develop a strong political base. All regimes are faced with the challenge of managing succession. Thus, a military oligarchy is only a partial regime due to its problems in managing the succession of power. Most new nations have their military regimes come to power through "reactive militarism" rather than "designed militarism" In the reactive breed of militarism, the military comes to power to inherent weaknesses in the ability of the current civilian regime to effectively govern. In designed militarism, the military plots to overthrow the government for its particular gain. However, in reality, even though the reactive force may dominate, many seizures of power are a results of both reactive and designed quests for power. These new military governments seek to remedy the weaknesses of the previous civilian government. However, not all coups are successful. Many have failed due to unclear motives, poor organization, or lack of parliamentary procedure.

After a successful takeover, the military may institute many forms of mild suppression. They may curtail the freedom of the press and speech. Disinters are often exiled by the ruling body. Nassar’s Egypt was an example of the development of widespread political support base. A "Socialist Union" was created, and people were allowed to declare their desire for membership. The local leaders and peasant all joined the union, and Egypt was effectively mobilized in wide-scale support of the regime.

In South Korean, the military came to power due to the ineptitude of the parliamentary leadership."The response of the military was reactive, although, once in power, it displayed considerable initiative to change the civilian political system as well as to modernize the country economical." (Janowitz, p. 167) The military used its skill to execute comprehensive reforms. However, it recognized the inherent weakness of relying on the army for mass political support and mobilization, and thus organized a civilian mass party. By creating a party set on modernizing and eliminating corruption, the Koreans had An effective support for their activities. Eventually, due to problems, the military was forced to retreat. However, it continued to serve as arbitrator in the political affairs of the state, keeping a watchful eye out for difficulties. New nations are also differentiated by their new alliances."Single dependency" nations form alliances with and receive military training fromthe old colonizing power."Multi-dependency nations" seek to form new alliances with other nations. Many new nations start out with single-dependency status. However, they tend to gradually move to create new alliances and move towards multi-dependency. Multi-dependency helps to insure neutrality in the world, and limits over-reliance on one nation or the other. It also allows to new nation to assert a great degree of self-reliance and autonomy. The United States has sent a great deal of aid, training and officers to new countries in helps of training them towards the US ideals. When military officers receive their training in the United States, they are greatly affected by their contacts and desires. The training programs, however, are reluctant to mention the potential for the military’s role in the development of the new country. Thus, the officers are not encouraged to entertain creative thoughts concerning these matters. New nations also look to forming their own alliances, and filling their own needs.

An army appears to be an essential characteristic of a new state. There is not a single example of a new nation that has decided to form itself without a military. Even small armies, such as the 200-man force of Togo are capable of intervening politically. Even in the days of the United Nations, countries still fill the necessity of employing a force for the defense of their borders. Instead of using the police as a force for international affairs, nations employ a separate army. This can be argued to be superior in providing a balance between the external and the internal managers of order and violence. The classical theory of democracy states that the military be entirely neutral in the political realm. However a corollary of this would seem to indicate that the military was nothing more than a group of hired mercenaries, loyal to the regime at hand. Thus, the military needs to be committed to a basic form of democratic institutions to keep the system going. The military can be a force in the social world that keeps the country progressing. New nations strive for the goal of "tutelary democracy". This ideological goal, however, must be grounded in a distinct set of values for it to work."No single concept will suffice as a basis for evaluating the political objectives and performance of the military. Instead, it is necessary to grope for a variety of criteria of performance. Such a set of criteria would include the capacity of the political system to generate social and economic change, but would have, as its basic dimension, the minimalization of coercion." (Janowitz, p. 179) To this end,. Their must be the creation of a mass political organization to help facilitate communication and growth of the people.

The contemporary civil-military relations in new nations are essentially transitional. Authoritarian-personal control lacks the ability to provide necessary change, and thus is usually swept away by a collective ruling group. Authoritarian-mass party control seems better, due to the interplay of civilian and political roles. However, it runs contrary to many of the long-term objectives of tutelary democracy. Democratic-competitive control of civilian leadership is fragile, and likely to fall due to internal or external conflicts. The final two types, coalition partner and ruling oligarchy "have the same political task: to help create some sort of mass apparatus which makes possible the shaping of a minimum level of political consensus." (Janowitz, p. 179) Overall, the military is much more involved in the political affairs of the new nations than it is in the well-established western nations of today. However, to have a significant, continual force, the military must be cohesive and united and not fall to fractionalization. Military elites

Functional criteria are used for the defining of elites. They are those who have achieved a leading hierarchical position. They also include those in junior positions that have achieved considerable influence without yet achieving high office. Furthermore, the elites can include those technical officers who exercise considerable influence behind the scene. However, the concept of elites does not include certain high--ranking officers who have since failed to exercise considerable influence in the affairs of the military. However, due to the difficulty in obtaining data on all aspects of the elite, studies generally focus on the elite who have obtained distinct hierarchical positions of rank. Attempts have been made to define elites using criteria of uniform social profiles and career patterns. However, not all elites come from the same social background. The elite cadre makes up the high ranking officials. However, the nucleus makes up the highest and most important of these. Often these two groups may have distinct social makeups. Elite groups also find themselves in cliques that cut across distinct bureaucratic lines in a nation. The most important aspect of the elites, however, is the forms of power and social control that they exercise over other social groups. Models of Political-Military Elite

There are four basic models of the political-military elite: aristocratic, democratic, totalitarianism, and garrison state. The aristocratic model saw its genesis in the pre-industrial society of Western Europe. The military elite were only recruited from the small group of aristocrats. There was a monolithic power structure that allowed the civilians to exercise comprehensive control over the military. The military was under subjective control. In the aristocratic model, the aristocracy defines the source of authority and prestige in the military. Military and civilian leaders had similar goal because they came from the same families. The military is a direct part of the government, and responsible to it. In the democratic model, there is a sharp level of distinction between the civilian and military elites. The civilians exercise objective control over the military through a formal set of rules. Military professionalism is high. The officers are employees of the state, and being a professional soldier is an all-inclusive task, precluding any other political involvement. The democratic model has risen out of political structure rather than history. It assumes a strong parliamentary body, and a strong degree of professional ethics in the military. The totalitarian model arises historically from the aristocratic model when the democratic model is not pushed in to place. Like the aristocratic model, the totalitarian military is under subjective control. However, the control does not stem from aristocracy. The revolutionary elite are bent on restructuring the military elite to carry out their desires. To help enforce this, they institute a team of secret police and party members infiltrating the military. Thus under totalitarianism, the organizational structure of the military is destroyed.

The final model is the garrison-state model. In this model, the civil supremacy of the democratic model is weakened. The result is a structure similar to that of totalitarianism; however, the history is different, and thus the result is a different type of structure. The military slowly and gradually rises to power to continual tensions of international conflict. The military does not directly dominate politics. Instead, military and military groups wield large amounts of power in the preparation for war. The military can form alliances with the civilian leaders to affectively hold on to its organizational autonomy. The models of military involvement to not necessarily arise out of "designed militarism" (like the Prussian militarism)Often the garrison state model can arise out of "unanticipated militarism" This "develops from the lack of effective traditions and practices for controlling the military establishment, as well as from a failure of civilian political leaders to act relevantly and consistently." (Janowitz, p. 190)Thus the military is forced in to extend their responsibilities. Thus while designed militarism reflects the militaries direct interference in political affairs, unanticipated militarism is merely the militaries response to continual changes and necessities in the society. The increasing advances in technology have caused changes in the basic democratic as well as other civil-military structure. Military personnel often have to assume positions preciously occupied by civilians in order to complete the desired tasks. Technical change is rapid today, and states spend a large sum of their money on the military, thus exacerbating the problems of technological innovation as it relates to civil military relations. The complexity of this new machinery makes it difficult for civilians to exercise the degree of control over the military that they have previously had. The necessary changes result in the military adopting more ‘business’ type of organization, and thus the distinction between civilians and military is weakened. Thus the officer recruitment base has been democratize, the organizational authority has shifted, and the skill differential between civilian and military elites has narrowed.

The democratization of the military is indicated by the changing recruitment base. Instead of recruiting from the high-status social base, the military recruits from a broader and lower level base of society. The aristocracy no long has a monopoly on elite military positions. The size of the military establishments, such as the US Air Force, with its demand for technical knowledge, contributes to this base. However, the democratization of recruitment has the opposite effect on the outlook and behavior. Many of the new recruits are not aware of the traditions of the democratic model, and thus their loyalty to the military is based on loyalty to a "job" rather than to the military organization per se. Military officers also begin to seek prestige and recognition from the public at large rather than just the military. Furthermore, the military has become a more heterogenous body. A shift in the basis of organizational authority has also impacted the military. Historically, entering in to the military is a commitment to a single organization without the freedom to change occupations as is found in civilian life. Enforcement of initiative rather than strict discipline has become the modern force for keeping the military going. Instead of domination, military commands are carried out by manipulation and persuasion. Instead of direct commands, there are often conferences to provide the necessary instruction to carry out the goals.

A final key characteristic change of the civil-military relations is the narrowing of the skill-differential between military and civilian elites. A military elite must develop the skills of internal management, and important public relations skills in order to communicate his instructions to the civilian leaders. The military and civilian skills of today are much more closely related in more easily intertwined than they have been in the past. Sometimes this results in conflicts among the old guard in the military and the new and rising generation who have been sensitized towards the importance of civilian characteristics. The military of today has had to learn to cope with the importance of political consequences of military action. The military faces weaknesses in the lack of top officials sensitized to deal with the administrative and political tasks required today. In the past, officers often volunteered for tasks that provided opportunities for indoctrination and training, such as foreign language and intelligence. The assignments were of low prestige, thus they involved some risk, yet they helped the officers to achieve their goal of advancement. Today, "indoctrination is now designed to eliminate the civilian contempt for the ‘military mind’" (Janowitz, p. 199) military officers are taught to shy away from historic military views as ethnocentrism and nationalism. Instead, the indoctrination seeks to allow the officer to be well versed in all thinking to which he will need to be exposed. This intellectualism of the military could lead to negative impacts, including the emergence of criticism towards the system as it exists now.

"In the long run, under either democratic or the totalitarian model, the military establishment cannot be controlled and still remain effective by civilianizing it. Despite the growth of the logistical dimensions of warfare, the professional soldier is, in the last analysis, a military commander and not a business or organizational administrator."The aspects that separate the military from the civilian are of most importance. Civilian control of the military is indicative of the various forces present in the society. The military’s willingness to submit to civilian control is most important. If the military becomes just like another job, it will lose the best talent to other civilian forces. Thus, the deafferentation between the military and civil society needs to be maintained to prevent undo military involvement in civil affairs.

- Jeremy Hubble 1 March 1997