Skip to main content
Politics

Return to Question

edited body
Source Link
user17569
user17569

weWe regularly see militaries seize power from Democratic governments. Recent example is Zimbabwe (Egypt). In some countries, military ruled for decades (Spain), in some countries military has considerable influnce on the decision making process (Pakistan). In some countries military becomes savior(zimbabwe). In other words, military's influence is either a probability, or a reality.

Why don't countries keep provision of the military to become 4th pillar of the state (other three being: executive, legislative, judiciary)?

In that way, a civilian government's power could be checked. For instance, Bangladesh is now suffering from the side effect of democracy. It

It can also be a fail safe measure in case of emergency and crisis. For instance, Bangladesh suffered several crises in the democracy regarding the caretaker government.

we regularly see militaries seize power from Democratic governments. Recent example is Zimbabwe. In some countries, military ruled for decades (Spain), in some countries military has considerable influnce on the decision making process (Pakistan). In other words, military's influence is either a probability, or a reality.

Why don't countries keep provision of the military to become 4th pillar of the state (other three being: executive, legislative, judiciary)?

In that way, a civilian government's power could be checked. For instance, Bangladesh is now suffering from the side effect of democracy. It can also be a fail safe measure in case of emergency and crisis. For instance, Bangladesh suffered several crises in the democracy regarding the caretaker government.

We regularly see militaries seize power from Democratic governments (Egypt). In some countries, military ruled for decades (Spain), in some countries military has considerable influnce on the decision making process (Pakistan). In some countries military becomes savior(zimbabwe). In other words, military's influence is either a probability, or a reality.

Why don't countries keep provision of the military to become 4th pillar of the state (other three being: executive, legislative, judiciary)?

In that way, a civilian government's power could be checked. For instance, Bangladesh is suffering from the side effect of democracy.

It can also be a fail safe measure in case of emergency and crisis. For instance, Bangladesh suffered several crises in the democracy regarding the caretaker government.

Source Link
user17569
user17569

Why don't various democratic countries keep military as the 4th component of the check and balance?

we regularly see militaries seize power from Democratic governments. Recent example is Zimbabwe. In some countries, military ruled for decades (Spain), in some countries military has considerable influnce on the decision making process (Pakistan). In other words, military's influence is either a probability, or a reality.

Why don't countries keep provision of the military to become 4th pillar of the state (other three being: executive, legislative, judiciary)?

In that way, a civilian government's power could be checked. For instance, Bangladesh is now suffering from the side effect of democracy. It can also be a fail safe measure in case of emergency and crisis. For instance, Bangladesh suffered several crises in the democracy regarding the caretaker government.