Before the First World War Germany, Italy, Japan, Spain and the East European countries had experienced military rules in some form or the other.
Even in France, influence the military played a vital role in the Gaulle’s taking control of country after the collapse of the Fourth Republic. In any political system the presence of the military is necessary.
From old society to the modem, the State has applied force as a component of its essential authority. The State applies force in its various manifestations according to the exigencies of time and, Circumstances i.e. policing the society, defending the country by military strength or using the military forces in emergencies. However, there are always forces in emergencies.
However, there Byways the danger that normal political process may get upset when the State tends to use force very frequently and the military is called out of the barracks to deal with domestic situations.
On the other hand, a demoralized and corrupt force poses a constant threat to civilian rule. Due to Corrupt civilian politics and lack of legitimacy of an ongoing regime, the armed forces emerge on different occasions as the saviour of law and order and the nation.
The Military refers to the Army, the Navy and the Air force and other forces, usually placed at the disposal of the state. It protects the State from external invasion and maintains peace and order on the border. It maintains law and order within the State in emergency.
It also helps and serves the people during the period of natural calamity. The growing significance of the subject of Military and politics is due to the fact that now no country can be said to be absolutely free from the politics of Military intervention, if it has to save itself from the disasters of domestic anarchy or foreign aggression.
As Samuel E. Finer writes, “The armed forces enjoy overwhelming superiority in the means of applying force. The wonder, therefore, is not why the military rebels against its civilian masters, but why it ever obeys them.”
The Relationship between Civil and Military Officials
According to Samuel P. Huntington, the civil-military relations are significant in a modern state.
Military personnel have professional competence within their own field. But they do not have the competence to deal with the goals of state policy. Civilian control involves subordination of the autonomous military profession to the ends of policy.
The states men acknowledge the integrity and specialization of the military profession, while the military officer remains politically neutral as a matter of course submits itself to political guidance.
But changes in civil-military relations take place when this balance is disturbed. In the event of installation of the military rule, the civilian rule disappears in the state concerned.