Class Notes (1,100,000)
CA (620,000)
UTSG (50,000)
POL101Y1 (1,000)
T A (20)

POL101Y1 Lecture Notes - Ideal Type, Counter-Insurgency, Constitutionalism

Political Science
Course Code

This preview shows pages 1-2. to view the full 6 pages of the document.
Dec. 6/2010
Civil Military Relations and Democracy
About power, but ultimately obedience: important thing about politics
Obedience more of a problem in civil military relations
All of the ability to project violence; take it away from ourselves and give it to our
troops (also given to the police functions)
Also given to the military they dont try to grab more power
As democracies we take all the power of society & separate it
Sources of power: tend to think that money gives you power, & this is true
He who controls the goal, controls the sword, however its often he who controls
the sword, controls the goal (problem of civil military relations)
For realists the world is a bad neighbourhood at 2am, its a world even if the
remaining democracies have won; its still a world of states, no overall global order
Or the order is one of error no one to impose the order, or there are multiple
sources of the imposition of that order
Importance of having an army:
Almost all the states in the world have a strong army
For ex. Poland didnt exist in the 18th century because it got taken over (and
chopped up) this was because the Polish nobility failed to vote for taxes to raise
the army that would allow for them to defend themselves
If you fail to build an army, you risk losing your state
Even if you have an army, the question is what kind of army?
Modern states- the transition from feudal army (armies that were largely made
up of & led by the aristocracy) true in Europe & Japan
The story of modern states is really the story of raising mass armies of citizenry
(not simply the elite who would fight each other)
If you could get the whole mass of the population behind you, you can be a very
dangerous country
Rise of modern democracy & large armies go together when Napoleon conquers
Europe, he conquers it with a mass army made up of the citizenry
However, when you have a mass army should you have a professionalized army
(one in which the citizenry volunteers & gets paid) OR a draft army?
For most of the history of Europe once you have the creation of mass armies
they evolve to become draft armies
Most countries that have mass armies; still have the draft (excl. Canada & US)
This has profound implications: the way that countries gather together & control
force, b/c of politics

Only pages 1-2 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

In democracies, having an army is like having a police force
Once you have a professional army as opposed to a draft, youre more likely to got
to war
The issue with draft armies is that with everyone voting, politicians are less likely
to take the nation to war; almost all military commands in the West prefer a
professional to a draft army (professional you get to use)
Problem of the Guardians
Who guards the guards? What is the proper mode of control of the military?
Cant guard themselves, not enough to have people simply guarding the guards
For ex. In the Soviet Union: In each unit they had a commanding officer, and 2nd
in command was a communist officer idea was that they were always afraid
What is the mode of control of civilians over the military?
Huntington: subjective versus objective
1954 Huntington was dealing with the fact that it became apparent to Americans
for the first time in history that it was going to have a very large, permanent,
well-financed standing military because it took on the role of global policeman
Americans had a tradition of militia (now have a bad reputation because they are
associated with tea-parties):
Historically militia were decentralized people who were armed & who were
supposed to protect the freedom of the community (i.e. 2nd amendment the right
to bear arms; actually says a well regulated militia being necessary for the
liberty of the people, congress cannot make a law infringing on the right to bear
arms, idea that the US would have armed citizens)
First time that the idea that the US would have a citizen army emerges;
Huntington uses 2 models to describe how the army would be kept from trying to
grab power:
Subjective (commitment to democracy):
Based on the way people think, want a citizenry thats used to cycling in and out
of the military (sometimes play the function of doctor, lawyer, soldier, student etc.)
commitment to democracy is what matters (faith and belief and commitment to
democracy controls them) COMMITMENT TO DEMOCRACY IS WHAT
MATTERS. (I.e. if youre from a fascist country, youre committed to fascism)
Whatever system you have is the subjective commitment of the soldiers
Model in the modern world was of the citizen soldier (i.e. the Swiss are neutral
but armed) this was a movement away from the feudal model
Model of control that depends on the way people think; you want an educated
soldier that is committed to democracy if youre living in a democratic country
(contact between military life and the citizenry)
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version