Paradox of the Military in a Democracy
Better a patient man than a warrior, A man that controls his temper than one who takes a city.
Proverbs 16:32
Whoever wants to be great among you must be your servant.
Matthew 20:26
Some may consider the term diplomat warrior an oxymoron; it is true that diplomacy, traditionally a civilian endeavor, and military activities are not always compatible.
But reconciling diplomacy with military operations other than war should be no more difficult than reconciling the paradox of a military organization within a democratic society, another prerequisite for military leadership.Operations other than war require that the military leader be equally at home in a civilian or military environment. But there is a natural tension in civil-military relations that can affect military legitimacy. This tension is due to the tendency for military (collective) values to conflict with civilian (individual) values. Colonel Dennis R. Hunt, Professor of Law at the US Military Academy, introduces cadets beginning the study of Constitutional law to the potential conflict:
To succeed as an officer you must comprehend the paradox of a military organization within a democratic society. The military is necessarily non-democratic and authoritarian, but it defends democratic principles and is manned with citizen soldiers drawn from a society which enjoys great personal liberties. You will be challenged to ensure that soldiers' Constitutional rights are neither unjustly nor unnecessarily abridged in the cause of accomplishing your mission and administering military law.2
The military environment emphasizes collective values such as good order and discipline which are required in an authoritarian organization; but these military values necessarily conflict with individual rights such as the freedom of expression which are protected by the Constitution, The potential conflict between these military and civilian values threatens civil-military relations and military legitimacy.
There is evidence that misplaced concepts of duty and loyalty to authoritarian values have caused some officers to lose touch with civilian values grounded in the US Constitution.3 This was illustrated in the Iran-Contra affair, when Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North put his loyalty to a mission of doubtful legality ahead of his duty to support the Constitution. In failing to co-operate with the Congress, he not only compromised his integrity, but also his mission. His actions doomed congressional support for the cause he had so zealously pursued.
Colonel North's conduct has been described as a leadership failure that. occurs when pragmatic but narrowly focused subordinates, in their zeal to get a job done or to please their boss, act illegally or unethically...'.4 A noted military ethicist, Colonel Anthony E. Hartle, questioned Colonel North's loyalty to the Constitution:
Some critics have claimed of North that in his zeal to promote democracy abroad, he subverted it at home, specifically in subverting some of the fundamental tenets of the professional military ethic. North may have become so concerned about protecting foreign agents and contacts that he lost sight of his loyalty to American institutions and the Constitution.
Colonel Hartle noted that when Colonel North, or any officer for that matter, puts loyalty to mission ahead of loyalty to the Constitution, it is a real threat to democracy:
When the inefficiency and lack of responsiveness of democratic procedures become too great a luxury or danger, and persons other than the people's elected representatives conclude that, because they understand the real priorities, democratic procedures must be set aside, then the republic is perhaps most endangered.5
The Constitution is the ultimate standard of legitimacy for military officers. They must not only understand the Constitution, but upon commissioning take an oath to 'support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic; and bear true faith and allegiance' to the same.
Where there are conflicting values of duty and loyalty, the oath leaves no doubt that the ultimate duty and loyalty of the military officer must be to the Constitution as the foundation of the rule of law and the bedrock of military legitimacy.6The dichotomy between military and civilian values is most evident in emerging democracies where there has been no traditional separation of military and political power. In the emerging democracies of Eastern Europe and Latin America, military legitimacy depends upon a new generation of leadership to reshape authoritarian concepts of military professionalism and improve historically poor civil-military relations.7
The challenge of promoting the Constitutional values of democracy, human rights and the rule of law in emerging democracies necessitates leadership that understands the importance of civil-military relations to military legitimacy. Leadership must be provided in civilian as well as military environments, which requires balancing the requirements of warfighting with a professional style that promotes civil-military relations.