Why are militaries being challenged all over the world?

Beyond the traditional challenges, militaries in some countries are now facing new forms of resistance and challenges to their established authority.(Representative image)

Militaries in many parts of the world are known to topple democratic governments, and in turn, face resistance from civil society, and even suffer counter-coups. Concurrently, militaries in many democratic as well as authoritarian set-ups are known to face challenges from terrorists and secessionist forces. However, beyond these traditional challenges, militaries in some countries are now facing new forms of resistance and challenges to their established authority. This challenge is coming from the uniformed class itself, leading to chaos and civil war on an unprecedented scale. A few months back, it was Sudan; now it is Russia’s turn.

Falling Out

In Sudan, the civil war arose since the might of the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) was being challenged by the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF). Both were partners in crime in toppling the civil government in 2021, which itself came into being in 2019 after the Omar Al Bashir regime was thrown out. In most developing countries where the military topples the civilian leadership, other government agencies fall in line due to the former’s preponderance of organised and disciplined manpower and monopoly over weapons. In Sudan, however, the numerical difference between the two sides was insignificant and the RSF had bargained significant power and resources for itself by virtue of partnership in Government. Two uniformed services with similar manpower, weaponry and power ambitions cannot co-exist in the long term. Consequently, a factional feud led to the civil war and would continue to plague Sudan’s domestic political turf.

The Russian military leadership has been challenged by a slightly different organisation — a private militia. While the government in Moscow has been saved from a possible coup, the short-lived challenge has been, nevertheless, quite humiliating and insulting for the Russian military. Again, mistakes that were committed in Sudan, were repeated here. TheWagner group has sizeable numbers (50,000 plus recruits) that is good enough to offer armed resistance to any military. The recruits have weapons available in the normal course only with conventional armies. Most importantly, they have actual experience in waging and winning wars in the last nine years. It was the Wagner group that had been soldering on Russia’s behalf against Ukraine in many battlefield spots.

There are plausible explanations for one military being challenged by another within the country. First, militaries in many countries are not true professionals, specialising only in ‘violence’. Instead, they are increasingly getting politicised. Earlier, they exercised indirect influence as a ‘pressure group’ in many democratic and authoritarian polities. Now, they want to have a pie in the cake. In Russia, the military elites had become increasingly politicised and powerful enough and would take orders only from the President. Such imbalance in civil-military relationships often galvanises other segments of uniformed groups like paramilitary and militia forces to compete with the military.

Conflicting Interests

Second, militaries in many countries suffer from ethnic imbalances. One or two ethnic groups occupy disproportionate positions within the armed forces. In Sudan, the two rival groups had traditionally different pockets of recruitment based on tribal affiliations and influence. This is also true of our neighbourhood where Pakistan, Nepal and Sri Lanka have high levels of ethnic imbalance in their national militaries. There are some excellent academic studies about divided armies having detrimental battlefield performance.

Third, commercial and corporate interests have overtaken the desirable focus on combat preparedness in many countries. Military elites exploit proximity to power to clinch and proliferate their individual and organisational commercial, business, and industrial interests. In fact, the generals do not retire and just change one set of uniforms for another. The all-pervasive militarisation of polity and society makes the task of these generals easier.

Fourth, meaningful defence reforms have not been ushered in many countries. Many national militaries have neither the resources nor the inclination to adapt to the changing nature of warfare. Consequently, even ragtag guerrilla armies challenge the conventional might of these militaries. The Russian military, for instance, could not defeat Ukraine so far. It was the Wagner army that was on the front foot on numerous battlefields. When the Wagner army decided, it could march on towards Moscow without a fight.

Even without a coup or armed resistance, militaries are coming under increasing challenges in other parts of the world. Only last month, the Pakistani military had one of its corps headquarters ransacked, GoC-in-C’s house looted and military property vandalised in many places. These trends will proliferate and may affect even functional and vibrant democracies due to expanding militarisation of public policy making and consequential backlash and anger amongst other organs of the governments.

Civilian leadership in all countries should ponder over such challenges to militaries. While asserting their authority, they should encourage the generals and soldiers to stick to the business of fighting, institutionalise inter-organisation checks and balances, and discourage extra privileges to them. Probably, that would help in engendering some confidence about the authority and aura of national militaries in most, if not, all countries.

Bhartendu Kumar Singh is in the Indian Defence Accounts Service. Views are personal, and do not represent the stand of this publication.