Civil-military Disharmony: Lessons from Bangladesh's military challenge to civilian rule

bangladesh curfew

In democratic setups, armed forces are supposed to be under complete civilian control. However, history is replete with numerous examples of the military brazenly disobeying civilian commands and, in many cases, usurping power from civilian authorities. The latest episode involves Bangladesh, where the army, led by its Chief Gen Waker-uz-Zaman, refused to enforce a curfew as directed by the then Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina Wazed and even forced her out of the country. While some strategic experts might welcome this disobedience to civilian directives, it is debatable whether armed forces can blatantly defy an elected political dispensation in democracies.

The issue of military’s obedience or disobedience to civilian authority must be contextualised within the framework of civil-military relations. While the armed forces are regarded as professionals in ‘organised violence’, there is a complete consensus in academic works that they must work under civilian supremacy. In the bargain, they receive autonomy in operational matters. In robust democracies, the military always displays submissiveness to elected government and swears by the constitution. However, history is replete with many examples where military leaderships did not side with political leadership. In January 2021, when Trump supporters were protesting against his defeat at the Capitol Hill, the US military leadership repeatedly swore to the constitution in their public statements and refused to take hints for intervention. The US military displayed highest levels of professionalism in professing loyalty only to the constitution and ‘nobody else’.

Bangladesh's Example of Military Defiance

Yet, there can be various models of disobedience by the armed forces against civilian leadership. In the most recent case, the Bangladesh army asked Sheikh Hasina Wazed to resign and leave the country on very short notice. The political leadership was formally elected, even though it exhibited autocratic trends. The Bangladesh military had not questioned the transparency of the January elections, despite concerns raised domestically and internationally. If the military's intention was solely to secure her physically, she could have been escorted to a safe location within or outside the country without demanding her resignation. Additionally, the President could have suspended Parliament temporarily and initiated political reconciliation for alternative governing arrangements. Most importantly, the military is deployed when the law and order situation exceeds civil control. There was indeed a rapidly deteriorating law and order situation in Bangladesh. By refusing to enforce curfew orders at a critical juncture and control the crowd, the Bangladesh army was either too scared, too cautious, too unprofessional, or simply manipulative in exploiting the situation.

Military Influence in Bangladesh

Historically, most refusals to the civil authorities from the armed forces have gone the Bangladesh way. It is quite tempting for the military to assume the role of defencer pacis in developing countries representing popular wishes and ask an elected government to quit. There could be particular explanations for such a scenario turning out to be a fait accompli in Bangladesh.

First, Bangladesh has a history of successful and failed armed takeovers against elected governments. Even under elected governments, the military had a larger than life presence in many aspects of civil bureaucracy and political leadership. Retired or serving military officers managed lucrative postings for themselves that should have been the exclusive jurisdiction of civilian bureaucracy, foreign service professionals or corporate czars. Thus, the governing machinery in Bangladesh was already militarised.

Second, Bangladesh may have had many elections since 1971, but successive governments failed to induce genuine democracy either in government functioning or simply as a way of life at societal level. Major institutional pillars of government were never allowed to become strong and function in a ‘check and balance ecosystem’. Political conception of tolerance was almost negligible and every ruling party made shameful endeavours to suppress the opposition.

Third, the military in Bangladesh did not encourage the democratisation project and never voiced its support for the rights of opposition parties and a fair representation for them in the political space. It allowed itself to be used by the political authority of the day and in bargain managed plum careers for its officers in the civilian sector.

The Military’s Role in Governance

Even if the army gets back to the barracks after the turmoil settles down, it is debatable if it will be happy with a low profile. Having tasted the blood in past, its clamour for a larger role in the jumbled governing machinery will continue unabated. We are already witnessing avoidable daily statements from the army chief. The new government would be quite dependent on the military for the very survival in power. Even if there were an elected government in future, the vulnerability would remain in situ. Consequently, this would retain the position of military as a superior institution, diluting other genuine institutions that are supposed to preserve, protect and promote democracy through ‘checks and balance’ ecosystem.

The Bangladesh examples establishes that there cannot be one model of military disobedience to civil authorities and some are indeed questionable. As happened in Bangladesh, the larger ethical considerations and constitutional proprieties are often put aside under the rubric of so-called popular interests and popular protests. Even in healthy and vibrant democracies with firm political control, armed forces are often at loggerheads with the civilian bureaucracy and play a game of organisational one-upmanship while show-casing obeisance to political leadership. Thus, even in flourishing democracies, civil-military harmony is often under test.

Enhancing Civil-Military Relations

There are only long-term solutions to such civil-military disharmony. More than a form of government, democracy needs promotion through proliferation of popular representation in societal activities. Different institutions of governance need dignified treatment as ‘true pillars of democracy’. Armed forces should be used cautiously for law and order duties since that is not their primary function. Most importantly, professional military education (PME) for armed forces must inculcate respect for political authority and civilian bureaucracy. Probably that will encourage the armed forces towards better compliance and obedience to civil authorities.