軍部의 政治介入의 原因과 形態에 關한 小考 : 開發途上國을 中心으로 Focussing on the Developing Countries = A Study on the Cause and Patterns of Military Interventions in politics

다국어 초록 (Multilingual Abstract)

Ⅰ
The newly emerging nations given independance by the big powers after World War Ⅱ have adopted western democracy as the most ideal and realistic of all political forms. They, however, failed to realize in whole the democratic policy and thus cause themselves sometimes painful and turbulent social, economic and political disorder. Such tangible pangs are brought by military authoritarianism.
There is a growing tendancy of the military to meddle in political affairs with no regard for the burning desire of the people to construct new democratic nations. Therefore, I would like to analyze the cause and patterns of military intervention undeveloped countries, and approach the goal that I keep in mind through professional books, special studies, and the analysis of the reports concerned.
Ⅱ
As for military intervention in the politics of developing contries, we are unable to define in a sentence exactly what form it takes, since every nation has a different type of military. Each nation's historical background, geographical position, economic system, and social structure differ, and especially in the characteristics of each military circle, we cannot find a single cohesive ideology common to every nation.
Thus many political scientists such as Robert D. Putman, S.E. Finer, R.J. Alexander, and others have advanced their unipue theories on the cause of military interventions in politics. These scholars do, however, find common features in the relationship between military organizational power and the state of degree of a society's developmental retardation.
The causes external to the military field are political (political disorder, underdeveloped political party.), cultural, economic, social, and foreign influence. However, the principle modifier has been the causes internal to the Army. The organizational features and power of the military have led to armed intervention in politics as you can well see. This contradicts the conclusions of Samuel P. Huntington, John, H. Jonson, Martin, C. Needler, Edwin Liuwen, and Moris Janowitz who found justification from the organizational features and professionalism in the military circle. The causes Janowitz has shown for armed intervention in the affairs of politics are as follows:
(1) Organizational format: The unrivaled organizations that manage the power and compelling force.
(2) Skill structure & career lines: Military career and professional experience could be applied to political attitudes or justfiable action.
(3) Social Recruitment and education: Social Recruitment and military training ascribe their meddling in politics to military characteristics itself.
(4) The special reasons in common with developing countries: Military professional and political ideology is the special bond in common.
Ⅲ
The patterns of military interventions in politics cannot be explained clearly in a world because military officers span from a variety of social systems, political and traditional backgrounds, as well as relationship differentials to national and political leaders. Louise Smith, by way of example, divided the military control over a country into praetorianism, caesarism, and garrison state; and David D. Rapport classified the relations between the military and society into the praetorian state, the civilian and military polity, and nation-in-arms. Edward Shills has shown us that the direction of political development consists of Political democracy, Traditional oligarchy, Totalian oligarchy, Modernizing oligarchy, Modernizing military oligarchy, and Tutelary democracy. Morris Janowitz made a distinction between the various governmental models available to industrializing nations by noting who holds the power. They are the aristocratic, democratic, and totalitarian models.
In the newly emerging countries, on the other hand, the styles of military control are classified into:
(1) Authoritarian personal control.
(2) Authoritarian mass party.
(3) Democratic competitive and Semi-competitive systems.
(4) Civilian-Military coalition.
(5) Military oligarchy.
As you can see, the patterns and style of military intervention cannot be formed distinctively according to fixed regulations. F.R. Mehden classified the types of armed intervention in developing nations as follows: First role is accounted for:
(1) The military as constitutional caretaker.
(2) The military as spearhead of reform of reform of revolution.
The second, indirect role, is also interpreted as the military as backer of the civilian government.
Ⅳ
Each developing country has its own special causes and types of military intervention in government which is created by its historical background. But it is no wonder to say that such military controls are brought about by the impotent government, corruption, lack of leadership, economic stagnation, Technical training, political ideology, professional, social want of unity, etc.
Therefore, I emphasize that the type of military interventions made by direct action of military authority as constitutional caretaker, or as a spearhead of revolution, and by indirect action of the military cliques as supporter of the civilian government. And I guess the evaluation for the cause of the military intervention cannot easily be concluded, since each countries suffers from and delights in its own special circumstance.