military governments

[BH]

Has anyone here lived in a country that has experienced a military government?

What was the experience like? What was good about it and what was bad?

I have heard and read that a military government will place restrictions on the public like curfews, ect.

I have read and heard they do get rid of some bad folks at times and clean up Dodge.

What say ye?

 

[barbos]

Moving to Philippines?

 

[Sarpedon]

While I haven't experienced one myself, from my reading of history it seems that curfews, while common are not necessarily part of them, and while some might 'clean up Dodge' in some cases, in many cases they also bring their own corruption.

It sounds that whatever you are hearing is strange, biased and incomplete. Where are you hearing these things?

Things like curfews are meant to keep public order by restricting activities to certain allowed hours every day. They are common among repressive governments, not merely military ones.

 

[Elixir]

I could tell you, but then I'd have to kill you.

 

[ronburgundy]

Moving to Philippines?

Probably, just preparing for what is becoming ever more plausible in the US.

We are about to have a GOP controlled White House, Senate, and House of Rep, and thus a GOP dominated SCOTUS within 3 years.
There are more Republican's who agree than who disagree that there could be a need for the military may need to take over the responsibilities of the Federal Government.

 

[whichphilosophy]

Moving to Philippines?

This is not a military government nowadays. It was democratically elected with a leader who is currently still popular. It did once have one under Marcos and until about 10 years ago there were several small attempted military coups to remove the elected ones.

 

[Bronzeage]

What's the difference, is the real question. It really depends upon what government was displaced by the military.

In any nation, the military will represent the establishment. It's just the nature of things. This means any time the military command thinks an intervention is needed, it's because the establishment is threatened. In the history of the 20th century, I can't recall a military coup which led to immediate democratic elections. It's more common to see democratic elections overturned by a coup.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

The reason a military coup is so common is because the military has the needed organization and materials in place at all times. The key word is organization, because this means they can quickly restore and maintain order. It takes massive numbers of people in the streets to resist a military coup. Even then, a lot of people will be hurt in the process. At some point, even the most hardened General will give up.

Short of that, most people in the world have a short list of desires and any government which can provide them will have some support.

The immediate problem of living under a military government is it means everyone is subject to military policy and military justice. Military authority can be arbitrary and capricious. An officer is given an assignment and resources to accomplish his goal. If he produces the desired results, it's not likely his methods will be questioned.

In the military, cooperation is not optional. When this principle is extended to the civilian population, it eliminates most of the civil rights we expect from an enlightened government. There is no more presumption of innocence, no more burden of proof. The individual's rights are subordinate to the interests of the government, or whoever has power in the immediate area.

I remember a Sunday political discussion TV show from many years ago. One of the panelists was a newly retired Army General. The topic was some middle European country where people were very irritable and killing each other. The host turned to the General and asked, "What can the military do in this situation?"

The General didn't hesitate. He said, "We can destroy things and kill people."
"How would that help the situation?" the host asked.
"I don't think it would," the General replied, but unless you need stuff destroyed and people killed, don't call the military. That's the only things we do really well."

This points out the main problem with a military government. As an organization, an army is not meant to be a government. When someone tries to shoehorn an army into a government, it's not a very good fit.

 

[Elixir]

Moving to Philippines?

Probably, just preparing for what is becoming ever more plausible in the US.

We are about to have a GOP controlled White House, Senate, and House of Rep, and thus a GOP dominated SCOTUS within 3 years.
There are more Republican's who agree than who disagree that there could be a need for the military may need to take over the responsibilities of the Federal Government.

I've had the sense for a long time, that Trump has had his eye on making something like that happen. Scary shit.
Wondering, though ... all those "2nd amendment" people ... they say they want guns in case they need to defend themselves from the government. But if it's the government that THEY elected, would they put up any fuss when their rights are taken away?

 

[ronburgundy]

What's the difference, is the real question. It really depends upon what government was displaced by the military.

In any nation, the military will represent the establishment. It's just the nature of things. This means any time the military command thinks an intervention is needed, it's because the establishment is threatened. In the history of the 20th century, I can't recall a military coup which led to immediate democratic elections. It's more common to see democratic elections overturned by a coup.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

The reason a military coup is so common is because the military has the needed organization and materials in place at all times. The key word is organization, because this means they can quickly restore and maintain order. It takes massive numbers of people in the streets to resist a military coup. Even then, a lot of people will be hurt in the process. At some point, even the most hardened General will give up.

Short of that, most people in the world have a short list of desires and any government which can provide them will have some support.

The immediate problem of living under a military government is it means everyone is subject to military policy and military justice. Military authority can be arbitrary and capricious. An officer is given an assignment and resources to accomplish his goal. If he produces the desired results, it's not likely his methods will be questioned.

In the military, cooperation is not optional. When this principle is extended to the civilian population, it eliminates most of the civil rights we expect from an enlightened government. There is no more presumption of innocence, no more burden of proof. The individual's rights are subordinate to the interests of the government, or whoever has power in the immediate area.

I remember a Sunday political discussion TV show from many years ago. One of the panelists was a newly retired Army General. The topic was some middle European country where people were very irritable and killing each other. The host turned to the General and asked, "What can the military do in this situation?"

The General didn't hesitate. He said, "We can destroy things and kill people."
"How would that help the situation?" the host asked.
"I don't think it would," the General replied, but unless you need stuff destroyed and people killed, don't call the military. That's the only things we do really well."

This points out the main problem with a military government. As an organization, an army is not meant to be a government. When someone tries to shoehorn an army into a government, it's not a very good fit.

The problem with a military coup is that it is non-democratic and the will of the populace plays almost no role in it.
All dictatorship's are essentially military-controlled societies, and all military controlled societies are dictatorships. Whether they got that way via a military coup or not is largely superfluous to the consequences once they become that way.
Just a dictatorship can sometimes happen to be better in the short-term for the populace (with a wise benevolent dictator) than a democracy, a military coup can also accomplish things that benefit the populace and that a democratic government would not.

However, note all the bolded qualifications on that statement. Those make such a benefit unlikely, rare, and short-lived. The more common and near-certain long-term effect is very negative, because members of such government have zero motive beyond altruistic ethics to give any consideration to the public desires or welfare, and there are infinitely greater ways that those in power can benefit themselves by harming the populace than by helping them. So, odds greatly favor harmful policies by any form of dictatorship and thus military coup.

Also, once established, authority by force will never revert to a democracy unless by counter-force.

This is why those who favor or would even consider supporting a military coup (such as the 43% of Republicans) are almost always those who favor dictatorships in general (even if they usually lie about it), because they think the dictators will be members of their in-group who will look out for their interests. Sometimes this belief is naive stupidity of the sort that nearly every Trump supporter has that isn't a multi-millionaire but thinks Trump is part of "their" group. Other times this belief is actually rational because the person is in fact a member of the majority and/or weapons-controlling in-group whose interests will benefit from a physical fight for authoritarian control.

 

[ronburgundy]

Probably, just preparing for what is becoming ever more plausible in the US.

We are about to have a GOP controlled White House, Senate, and House of Rep, and thus a GOP dominated SCOTUS within 3 years.
There are more Republican's who agree than who disagree that there could be a need for the military may need to take over the responsibilities of the Federal Government.

I've had the sense for a long time, that Trump has had his eye on making something like that happen. Scary shit.
Wondering, though ... all those "2nd amendment" people ... they say they want guns in case they need to defend themselves from the government. But if it's the government that THEY elected, would they put up any fuss when their rights are taken away?

Absolutely not. They will be the first to volunteer to help the military to round up to gays, blacks, and non-Christians. The anti-Fed rhetoric among those sort of gun-crazed conservatives is a smoke-screen. They are mostly hard-core authoritarians with little sincere regard for personal liberty or democracy. They only oppose the Fed for the same reason the Confederacy did, which is that the Fed sought to protect human rights and personal liberty from oppression by the local and state-level majorities. IOW, they don't like all this progress toward respecting equal rights and personal liberty that the liberals are forcing on them via enforcing the Federal Constitution.

 

[Bronzeage]

What's the difference, is the real question. It really depends upon what government was displaced by the military.

In any nation, the military will represent the establishment. It's just the nature of things. This means any time the military command thinks an intervention is needed, it's because the establishment is threatened. In the history of the 20th century, I can't recall a military coup which led to immediate democratic elections. It's more common to see democratic elections overturned by a coup.

So what does that have to do with the price of eggs in China?

The reason a military coup is so common is because the military has the needed organization and materials in place at all times. The key word is organization, because this means they can quickly restore and maintain order. It takes massive numbers of people in the streets to resist a military coup. Even then, a lot of people will be hurt in the process. At some point, even the most hardened General will give up.

Short of that, most people in the world have a short list of desires and any government which can provide them will have some support.

The immediate problem of living under a military government is it means everyone is subject to military policy and military justice. Military authority can be arbitrary and capricious. An officer is given an assignment and resources to accomplish his goal. If he produces the desired results, it's not likely his methods will be questioned.

In the military, cooperation is not optional. When this principle is extended to the civilian population, it eliminates most of the civil rights we expect from an enlightened government. There is no more presumption of innocence, no more burden of proof. The individual's rights are subordinate to the interests of the government, or whoever has power in the immediate area.

I remember a Sunday political discussion TV show from many years ago. One of the panelists was a newly retired Army General. The topic was some middle European country where people were very irritable and killing each other. The host turned to the General and asked, "What can the military do in this situation?"

The General didn't hesitate. He said, "We can destroy things and kill people."
"How would that help the situation?" the host asked.
"I don't think it would," the General replied, but unless you need stuff destroyed and people killed, don't call the military. That's the only things we do really well."

This points out the main problem with a military government. As an organization, an army is not meant to be a government. When someone tries to shoehorn an army into a government, it's not a very good fit.

The problem with a military coup is that it is non-democratic and the will of the populace plays almost no role in it.
All dictatorship's are essentially military-controlled societies, and all military controlled societies are dictatorships. Whether they got that way via a military coup or not is largely superfluous to the consequences once they become that way.
Just a dictatorship can sometimes happen to be better in the short-term for the populace (with a wise benevolent dictator) than a democracy, a military coup can also accomplish things that benefit the populace and that a democratic government would not.

However, note all the bolded qualifications on that statement. Those make such a benefit unlikely, rare, and short-lived. The more common and near-certain long-term effect is very negative, because members of such government have zero motive beyond altruistic ethics to give any consideration to the public desires or welfare, and there are infinitely greater ways that those in power can benefit themselves by harming the populace than by helping them. So, odds greatly favor harmful policies by any form of dictatorship and thus military coup.

Also, once established, authority by force will never revert to a democracy unless by counter-force.

This is why those who favor or would even consider supporting a military coup (such as the 43% of Republicans) are almost always those who favor dictatorships in general (even if they usually lie about it), because they think the dictators will be members of their in-group who will look out for their interests. Sometimes this belief is naive stupidity of the sort that nearly every Trump supporter has that isn't a multi-millionaire but thinks Trump is part of "their" group. Other times this belief is actually rational because the person is in fact a member of the majority and/or weapons-controlling in-group whose interests will benefit from a physical fight for authoritarian control.

"Wise benevolent dictator" is a contradiction in terms. The number one priority of any dictator is remaining a dictator. No matter how wise or benevolent, he will never be able to be both and remain a dictator.

 

[skepticalbip]

"Wise benevolent dictator" is a contradiction in terms. The number one priority of any dictator is remaining a dictator. No matter how wise or benevolent, he will never be able to be both and remain a dictator.

But that is the self-contradictory ideal that far too many dream of, some authority figure that protects them, cares for them, and provides for them. It's the reason religion has such appeal for so many.

 

[blastula]

Moving to Philippines?

Probably, just preparing for what is becoming ever more plausible in the US.

We are about to have a GOP controlled White House, Senate, and House of Rep, and thus a GOP dominated SCOTUS within 3 years.
There are more Republican's who agree than who disagree that there could be a need for the military may need to take over the responsibilities of the Federal Government.

Trump has already picked 3 generals for his cabinet or staff.

 

[Elixir]

"Wise benevolent dictator" is a contradiction in terms. The number one priority of any dictator is remaining a dictator. No matter how wise or benevolent, he will never be able to be both and remain a dictator.

But that is the self-contradictory ideal that far too many dream of, some authority figure that protects them, cares for them, and provides for them. It's the reason religion has such appeal for so many.

Religions should be required by law to hold votes every four years for their god. Gods could be nominated from the roster of 10,000 or more known to have "existed" (in the minds of the faithful), and a second should be required for a given god to make the ticket. There should also be term limits. If religions don't comply, they should lose their tax-exempt status.

 

[Sarpedon]

Oh, I don't know that there aren't any historical examples of good and wise dictators, but they are a rare animal indeed.

Cincinattus and George Washington are viewed as people who had huge powers bestowed upon them, which they then relinquished to return to private life, rather than going on the more traditional dictatorial path. Zhuge Liang of Shu is a semi-mythological figure who may also fit the bill. Then there was Charles de Gaulle, who essentially served as dictator of France twice, with the establishment of democratic constitutions and peaceful transitions of power afterwards both times.

 

[ronburgundy]

The problem with a military coup is that it is non-democratic and the will of the populace plays almost no role in it.
All dictatorship's are essentially military-controlled societies, and all military controlled societies are dictatorships. Whether they got that way via a military coup or not is largely superfluous to the consequences once they become that way.
Just a dictatorship can sometimes happen to be better in the short-term for the populace (with a wise benevolent dictator) than a democracy, a military coup can also accomplish things that benefit the populace and that a democratic government would not.

However, note all the bolded qualifications on that statement. Those make such a benefit unlikely, rare, and short-lived. The more common and near-certain long-term effect is very negative, because members of such government have zero motive beyond altruistic ethics to give any consideration to the public desires or welfare, and there are infinitely greater ways that those in power can benefit themselves by harming the populace than by helping them. So, odds greatly favor harmful policies by any form of dictatorship and thus military coup.

Also, once established, authority by force will never revert to a democracy unless by counter-force.

This is why those who favor or would even consider supporting a military coup (such as the 43% of Republicans) are almost always those who favor dictatorships in general (even if they usually lie about it), because they think the dictators will be members of their in-group who will look out for their interests. Sometimes this belief is naive stupidity of the sort that nearly every Trump supporter has that isn't a multi-millionaire but thinks Trump is part of "their" group. Other times this belief is actually rational because the person is in fact a member of the majority and/or weapons-controlling in-group whose interests will benefit from a physical fight for authoritarian control.

"Wise benevolent dictator" is a contradiction in terms. The number one priority of any dictator is remaining a dictator. No matter how wise or benevolent, he will never be able to be both and remain a dictator.

Not necessarily. A dictator doesn't imply they must use violence to exert their will, only that they and they alone have ultimate say in what is done and whether they continue to be the authority.

Can parents be wise and benevolent without allowing their kids to do whatever they want and self-determine all the rules by which they abide?

It is very easy to imagine an authority installed via some non-democratic fiat who could be infinitely wiser and more benevolent and better for the American people than Trump.

In the long run, a dictator system will attract and empower more unwise and malevolent dictators than wise and benevolent ones, and moreso than the average leaders chosen via democratic systems. However, within that long run there will be individual dictators that better serve the interests of the populace than some democratically elected leaders would, especially when the voting public has no majority that isn't either dangerously stupid, immoral, or both (as the US just proved it lacks).

 

[ronburgundy]

Oh, I don't know that there aren't any historical examples of good and wise dictators, but they are a rare animal indeed.

Cincinattus and George Washington are viewed as people who had huge powers bestowed upon them, which they then relinquished to return to private life, rather than going on the more traditional dictatorial path. Zhuge Liang of Shu is a semi-mythological figure who may also fit the bill. Then there was Charles de Gaulle, who essentially served as dictator of France twice, with the establishment of democratic constitutions and peaceful transitions of power afterwards both times.

A major reason why wise and benevolent people rarely hold such power is because without a democracy, the systems that usually determines who is in power are systems that favor those who use violence against innocent people to acquire that power. But it isn't that being a dictator, once in power, is inherently at odds with being wise and benevolent. IOW, I have no doubt I could find millions of Americans that if I could somehow install them as a dictator of the US by magical declaration would do less to harm to the majority of people in the next 4 years than our newly democratically elected president and Congress will do. Gaining a major empire almost always requires violence against innocents. So, there are few historical examples of dictators of major empires that were wise and benevolent. However, being a Lord or King by birth over a small group doesn't always require such violence. There are likely many instances of such minor dictators who did more to help their subjects than the subjects would have done via a democratic system.

 

[Bronzeage]

"Wise benevolent dictator" is a contradiction in terms. The number one priority of any dictator is remaining a dictator. No matter how wise or benevolent, he will never be able to be both and remain a dictator.

Not necessarily. A dictator doesn't imply they must use violence to exert their will, only that they and they alone have ultimate say in what is done and whether they continue to be the authority.

Can parents be wise and benevolent without allowing their kids to do whatever they want and self-determine all the rules by which they abide?

It is very easy to imagine an authority installed via some non-democratic fiat who could be infinitely wiser and more benevolent and better for the American people than Trump.

In the long run, a dictator system will attract and empower more unwise and malevolent dictators than wise and benevolent ones, and moreso than the average leaders chosen via democratic systems. However, within that long run there will be individual dictators that better serve the interests of the populace than some democratically elected leaders would, especially when the voting public has no majority that isn't either dangerously stupid, immoral, or both (as the US just proved it lacks).

I'll stand by "contradiction in terms." To hope for anything better is is to expect some alteration of human nature. Of course, everyone always has the option of being nice, but the things that make a man think being a dictator is a good idea are the things that take away the nice options.

 

[ronburgundy]

Not necessarily. A dictator doesn't imply they must use violence to exert their will, only that they and they alone have ultimate say in what is done and whether they continue to be the authority.

Can parents be wise and benevolent without allowing their kids to do whatever they want and self-determine all the rules by which they abide?

It is very easy to imagine an authority installed via some non-democratic fiat who could be infinitely wiser and more benevolent and better for the American people than Trump.

In the long run, a dictator system will attract and empower more unwise and malevolent dictators than wise and benevolent ones, and moreso than the average leaders chosen via democratic systems. However, within that long run there will be individual dictators that better serve the interests of the populace than some democratically elected leaders would, especially when the voting public has no majority that isn't either dangerously stupid, immoral, or both (as the US just proved it lacks).

I'll stand by "contradiction in terms." To hope for anything better is is to expect some alteration of human nature. Of course, everyone always has the option of being nice, but the things that make a man think being a dictator is a good idea are the things that take away the nice options.

I'll reiterate, are all parents who don't let their kids run the household bad? Most reasonable and responsible parenting entails being what would qualify as a dictator at the societal level. The reason is that kids are not generally capable of protecting their own interests, so letting them do so (by being "democratic") is irresponsible bad parenting. There are situations where the same is true of the adult public, so it doesn't require that a person not be "nice" in order to be willing to dictate the rules. Wanting to go from a democracy to a dictatorship system is bad in the long run for the reasons I explicated, so that would require not being "nice", but that is different than a person who found themselves with dictator powers being willing and able to use them for good.

 

[Sarpedon]

You could say that the term 'dictator' applies to only those who went down that road when they came to it, leaving the likes of Washington and DeGaulle to take the other fork to Cincinatti. That would mean there weren't any wise and good dictators, as Bronzeage says.


Also: a military government is not necessarily a dictatorship. The 'junta' is also a popular form of military government. Some (not all) juntas have factions that act as checks to other factions, that may disqualify its leaders from the strict definition of 'dictator.' Of course, many juntas are simply camoflage for a single person running the show.