Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:14:12.056Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Conditions of civilian control in new democracies: an empirical analysis of 28 ‘third wave’ democracies

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 February 2016

David Kuehn ,
Aurel Croissant ,
Jil Kamerling ,
Hans Lueders  and
André Strecker
David Kuehn*
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Germany
Aurel Croissant
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Germany
Jil Kamerling
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Germany
Hans Lueders
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Stanford University, USA
André Strecker
Affiliation:
Institute of Political Science, Heidelberg University, Germany
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Institutionalizing civilian control over the military is a crucial challenge for newly democratized nations. This paper aims to answer the question under which conditions civilian control can be established after the transition to democracy, and under which conditions civilian control fails. To answer this question, we draw on original data on civil–military relations in 28 new democracies in Africa, Asia, Europe, and Latin America and run a fuzzy set qualitative comparative analysis. We find that no single explanatory factor can be considered necessary for the success or failure of civilian control in new democracies, but identify a number of sufficient variable combinations to explain the development of civil–military relations after the transition to democracy.

Keywords

civilian controldemocratizationmilitaryfuzzy setsQCA
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , August 2017 , pp. 425 - 447
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agüero, F. (1995), Soldiers, Civilians, and Democracy: Post-Franco Spain in Comparative Perspective, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Agüero, F. (2009), ‘The new ‘double challenge’: democratic control and efficacy of military, police, and intelligence’, in A.C. Stepan (ed.), Democracies in Danger, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, pp. 59–75.Google Scholar
Alagappa, M. (2001), ‘Investigating and explaining change: an analytical framework’, in M. Alagappa (ed.), Coercion and Governance: The Declining Political Role of the Military in Asia, Stanford: Stanford University Press, pp. 29–68.Google Scholar
Barany, Z. (1997), ‘Democratic consolidation and the military: the east European experience’, Comparative Politics 30(1): 21–44.Google Scholar
Barany, Z. (2012), The Soldier and the Changing State: Building Democratic Armies in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the Americas, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Beach, D. and Pedersen, R.B. (2013), Process-Tracing Methods: Foundations and Guidelines, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Belkin, A. and Schofer, E. (2003), ‘Toward a structural understanding of coup risk’, Journal of Conflict Resolution 47(5): 594–620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruneau, T.C. and Trinkunas, H.A. (eds), (2008), Global Politics of Defense Reform, New York: Palgrave Macmillan.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bruneau, T.C. and Matei, F.C. (2012), ‘Introduction’, in T.C. Bruneau and F.C. Matei (eds), Routledge Handbook of Civil-Military Relations, London: Routledge, pp. 1–10.Google Scholar
Caparini, M., Fluri, P.H. and Molnar, F. (eds) (2006), Civil Society and the Security Sector: Concepts and Practices in New Democracies, Berlin: Lit-Verlag.Google Scholar
Cheibub, J.A., Gandhi, J. and Vreeland, J.R. (2010), ‘Democracy and dictatorship revisited’, Public Choice 143(1–2): 67–101.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colton, T.J. (1979), Commissars, Commanders, and Civilian Authority: The Structure of Soviet Military Politics, Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Cottey, A., Edmunds, T. and Forster, A. (2002), ‘The second generation problematic: rethinking democracy and civil-military relations’, Armed Forces & Society 29(1): 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croissant, A., Kuehn, D., Chambers, P.W. and Wolf, S.O. (2010), ‘Beyond the fallacy of coup-ism: conceptualizing civilian control of the military in emerging democracies’, Democratization 17(5): 950–975.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Croissant, A., Kuehn, D., Lorenz, P. and Chambers, P.W. (2013), Democratization and Civilian Control in Asia., Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
Desch, M.C. (1999), Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
Duşa, A. and Thiem, A. (2014), ‘QCA: a package for qualitative comparative analysis. R Package Version 1.1-4’. Retrieved 21 May 2015 from http://cran.r-project.org/package=QCA Google Scholar
Edmonds, M. (1988), Armed Services and Society, Leicester: Leicester University Press.Google Scholar
Feaver, P.D. (1999), ‘Civil-military relations’, Annual Review of Political Science 2(1): 211–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finer, S.E. (1962), The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics, London: Pall Mall.Google Scholar
Geddes, B., Wright, J. and Frantz, E. (2014), ‘Global political regimes data set’. Retrieved 31 May 2015 from http://dictators.la.psu.edu/data/GWF%20Autocratic%20Regimes%201.1.zip Google Scholar
Huntington, S.P. (1957), The Soldier and The State. The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations, Cambridge: Belknap.Google Scholar
Kane, T. (2004), ‘Global U.S. Troop Deployment, 1950–2003’. Heritage Foundation. Retrieved 16 July 2014 from http://www.heritage.org/research/reports/2004/10/global-us-troop-deployment-1950-2003 Google Scholar
Kuehn, D. (2013), Institutionalizing civilian control in new democracies: a game-theoretic contribution to the development of civil-military relations theory. Doctoral Dissertation. Heidelberg: Heidelberg University.Google Scholar
Kuehn, D. and Lorenz, P. (2011), ‘Explaining civil-military relations in new democracies: structure, agency and theory development’, Asian Journal of Political Science 13(5): 231–249.Google Scholar
Linz, J.J. and Stepan, A. (eds) (1996), Problems of Democratic Transition and Consolidation: Southern Europe, South America, and Post-Communist Europe, Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.Google Scholar
March, J.G. and Olsen, J.P. (1984), ‘The new institutionalism: organizational factors in political life’, American Political Science Review 78(3): 734–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marshall, M.G. and Jaggers, K. (2013), ‘Polity IV project: political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800-2013’. Retrieved 16 July 2014 from http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4v2013.xls Google Scholar
North, D.C., Wallis, J.J. and Weingast, B.R. (2009), Violence and Social Orders: A Conceptual Framework for Interpreting Recorded Human History, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pion-Berlin, D. (1992), ‘Military Autonomy and Emerging Democracies in South America’, Comparative Politics 25(1): 83–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pion-Berlin, D. (2001), ‘Introduction’, in D. Pion-Berlin (ed.), Civil-Military Relations in Latin America: New Analytical Perspectives, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, pp. 1–35.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2000), Fuzzy-Set Social Science, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2008), Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond, Chicago: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rustow, D.A. (1970), ‘Transitions to democracy: toward a dynamic model’, Comparative Politics 2(3): 337–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. and Wagemann, C. (2012), Set-Theoretic Methods for the Social Sciences: A Guide to Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. and Rohlfing, I. (2013), ‘Combining QCA and process tracing in set-theoretic multi-method research’, Sociological Methods & Research 42(4): 559–597.Google Scholar
Schwank, N. (ed.) (2013), ‘CONIAS Dataset 1945-2008, YearIntensity V1.2, Heidelberg 2013’. Retrieved 22 May 2015 from http://www.conias.org/datens%C3%A4tze/verf%C3%BCgbare.html Google Scholar
Serra, N. (2010), The Military Transition: Democratic Reform of the Armed Forces, (translated by Peter Bush), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Svolik, M.W. (2008), ‘Authoritarian reversals and democratic consolidation.’, American Political Science Review 102(2): 153–168.Google Scholar
Svolik, M.W. (2014), ‘Which democracies will last? Coups, incumbent takeovers, and the dynamic of democratic consolidation’, British Journal of Political Science 45(4): 715–738.Google Scholar
Trinkunas, H.A. (2005), Crafting Civilian Control of the Military in Venezuela: A Comparative Perspective, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Union of International Associations (various years), Yearbook of International Organizations, Brussels: Union of International Associations.Google Scholar
Valenzuela, S.J. (1992), ‘Democratic consolidation in post-transitional settings: notion, process, and facilitating conditions’, in S. Mainwaring and G.A. O’Donnell (eds), Issues in Democratic Consolidation: The New South American Democracies in Comparative Perspective, Notre Dame: University of Notre Dame Press, pp. 57–105.Google Scholar
Wahman, M., Teorell, J. and Hadenius, A. (2013), ‘Authoritarian regime types revisited: updated data in comparative perspective’, Contemporary Politics 19(1): 19–34.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kuehn supplementary material

Appendix

Download Kuehn supplementary material(File)
File 147.7 KB