CONTEMPORARY EURASIA VOLUME VII (1, 2) Contemporary-Eurasia-3new | Page 44

CONTEMPORARY EURASIA
military regards its occupation as a profession they may be drawn to think
of themselves as the servants of the state rather than that of the incumbent
civilian government. This kind of reasoning may lead the military to in-
tervene in political aff airs whenever they judge the civilian leaders to be
acting contrary to national interest. 5
Feaver also states that traditionally CMR has focused on the direct
seizure of political power by the military, which is the coup. Coups are
the traditional focus of civil-military relations because they symbolize
the main problem: the military exploiting their ability to use violence to
displace a civilian government. A coup may indicate military strength as
well as weakness. A military which carries out a coup may seem strong
compared to other political actors. However, a coup also indicates the
military’s inability to achieve its goals through political means. 6 Feaver
argues that the frequency and success rates have fallen which indicates
important changes in the nature of civil-military relations over time. Like
Feaver and Finer other authors also take a critical approach on Hunting-
ton’s theory of professionalism. Some authors claim that CMR need re-
consideration especially after the end of the Cold War and the spread
of democratization that followed. Douglas Bland proposes a theory of
shared responsibility between the military and civilian authorities. His
main thesis is that civilian leaders and military offi cers should share the
responsibility of asserting civilian control over the military. 7 James Burk
also argues that a new CMR theory needs to address the modern prob-
lems among the two entities. He claims that the traditional role of the
military has changed and that nowadays the military should be an instru-
ment for protecting and sustaining democratic values within and beyond
the nation state. 8 David Albright also argues that it is important to stop
thinking about the military and civilian authorities as two dichotomous
terms. If sometimes confl ict does exist in civil-military relations in spe-
cifi c countries, it is not necessarily the case at all times for all states. The
cooperative or adversary nature of CMR in a given country depends on
the level of cooperation or antagonism between the civilian and military
authorities of that country. If the line distinguishing between military and
civilian authorities is blurred there is a great chance that relations will be
in a cooperative nature. 9 Rebecca Schiff is also among the authors who
5
6
7
8
9
Ibid., 26.
Peter Feaver, “Civil-military relations,” Annual Review of Political Science 2.1 (1999): 218.
Douglas Bland, “A unifi ed theory of civil-military relations,” Armed Forces & Society 26,
no. 1 (1999): 7-25.
James Burk, “Theories of democratic civil-military relations,” Armed Forces & Society 29,
no. 1 (2002): 7-29.
David Albright, “A comparative conceptualization of civil-military relations,” World Poli-
tics 32, no. 4 (1980): 553-576.
44