Timeline for Why don't various democratic countries keep military as the 4th component of the check and balance?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
13 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 9, 2018 at 8:14 | vote | accept | CommunityBot | ||
| Nov 21, 2017 at 6:41 | comment | added | ohwilleke♦ | The premise is ill founded. Some countries (Turkey, Egypt, Zimbabwe and others) have done just that. | |
| Nov 20, 2017 at 7:27 | comment | added | Golden Cuy | At risk of being flippant, military rule is by definition undemocratic. | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:24 | comment | added | userLTK | @anonymous There's still the "how would it work" problem. You're talking theoretical but if the Military has the power to enforce free elections, they'd have the power to corrupt the elections. How do you prevent corrupt alignment between military and national leaders? In Turkey, the Military had political clout until recently. Erdogan's largely stripped the military of those who might oppose him. Military can have political power, but it's more of a shoving match. I don't think you can make it somehow manageable and balance the power by incorporation. (if that makes sense?). | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:03 | comment | added | user17569 | @userLTK, well, its not working in case of Kenya, for instance. Suppose, there had been a provision in the constitution , in case of Democratic crises like rigged elections, army will take charge, political parties won't try to rig. | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:03 | answer | added | Steve Smith | timeline score: 5 | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 13:03 | answer | added | IllusiveBrian | timeline score: 1 | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 12:43 | comment | added | userLTK | I think @Philipp nailed it. Military can be a political force in a power vacuum for good or bad but it doesn't make much sense to install it as a 4th branch in an "organized" political process. Do we want the military weighing in on issues of the day like tax reform, healthcare or climate change? We have the legislative branch that represents local interests and writes the bills, the Executive who generally oversees, signs, and is the face of the nation and the Judicial that addresses legal questions. I don't see what role the military could play if added to the 3 branches. | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 12:14 | comment | added | Philipp♦ | How would that even look in practice? In most countries the army already is an unofficial check and balance institution because they usually have enough fire- and manpower to just overthrow the government and install a military dictatorship if they want to. this happens all the time all around the world. It's not in the interest of any democracy to acknowledge and encourage that possibility by writing it into the constitution. | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 11:56 | history | edited | user17569 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Nov 18, 2017 at 11:55 | comment | added | user17569 | Judiciary is also unelected. CJ is always appointed . Executive branch is also not elected. The are dominated by burocrats. | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 11:49 | comment | added | Politic Revolutionnaire | Something that immediately comes to mind is the military is unelected and tends to act in its own interest when involved in political matters. | |
| Nov 18, 2017 at 11:43 | history | asked | user17569 | CC BY-SA 3.0 |