Civilian rule is often better than military rule. Civilian rule is designed to take a functioning civil body and make it work for the population without the need for much intervention. That intervention is delegated to the local police force. If the population needs much more that the occasional intervention, then military rule would likely be the best bet. The biggest issue these options face is that corruption can make either of them ineffective, or even intolerable.
Military rule is awful, it limits the freedoms of the people, I know this doesn’t have much of an impact for people in 3rd world countries, but what their leaders need to realize is that this isn’t their planet to control; we are living organisms on this planet, just like the animals. This world is a garden to the animals, and it should be a garden to us too. Military rule dictates and barks out what we can and cannot do.There needs to be a separation between the two forces, political and armed, or else too much power will be given to a small group which sooner or later would likely reach a disconnect with the general public and would have no serious opposition to stop them from running over the public opinion
Military rule tends to be extremely orderly, efficient even, however you can almost certainly forget about things like “civil liberties“, because military leaders who are running countries as a general rule don’t care about them as much as they care about safe-guarding the country’s infrastructure, and their soldier’s lives. Because military’s functions are to accomplish goals, and the shortest, safest, and fastest path to those goals. Civilian governments, as opposed to military governments, are defined by who has the monopoly over state violence–that is, armed forces. In a civilian government associated with liberal democracies, the military is subordinate to elected leaders. However, in authoritarian forms of government, armed forces are controlled either by the military itself
A democratic system is defined by the right of the people to chose their rulers. Civilian governments uphold two central principles of democracies: participation and contestant. Free and fair election lets people participate by voting to choose their rulers. At the same time, government leadership is contested in elections by those campaigning to run a public office. Contrast that with a military rule, where leadership of government is determined behind closed doors by top-ranking generals.A civilian government is accountable to an independent judiciary and parliament. They must submit the government’s proposed budget every year for parliament’s approval. This ensures that the resources available to the country are spent to benefit maximum number of people. At the same time, the government must disclose full information about its activities, although, in the beginning of the 21st century, governments increasingly cite security concern as an excuse to become more opaque.
A civilian government, because it is chosen in elections, does not need to forcibly suppress the opposition. A military government, however, resorts to physical violence to stifle any dissent. Physical violence such as torture and killings is the most pernicious example of human right abuses. Lesser forms of abuse may be persecution, intimidation and unlawful detention.
A civilian government is more amenable to freedom of speech and a free press than a military government. However, there are boundaries around freedom of speech, be they implicit cultural boundaries or explicit constitutional boundaries. Even in liberal democracies, the degree of freedom of speech during times of war–usually when the military has the most influence over the government–is lower than during times of peace. However, regardless of the security situation inside the country, military rules are notorious for forbidding free speech. Good example of military leadership is the one Egypt . Egyptian President Morsi ousted in military coup and good example of civilian rule is like turkey. Since the party of the Turkish government, AK Party came to office, the reserve of Turkish government has raised from less than from less than US $ 20 billion to over 220 billion dollars in eight years in office.Recep Tayyip Erdogan: People’s Choice for TIME’s 2011 Person of the Year. In conclusion, I am in the opinion that popularity of Peace, Unity, and Development Party (kulmiye) will increase double fold. last, but not least, civilian mentality is better than military mentality.
Good example of military mentality is like General Alexander Meigs Haig who said “I am in control here” at the time of attempted assassination of US President Ronald Reagon on Monday, March 30, 1981. Reagan suffered a punctured lung and heavy internal bleeding, but prompt medical attention allowed him to recover quickly. No formal invocation of president succession took place, although Secretary of State General Alexander Meigs controversially stated that he was “in control here” while Vice President George H.W.Bush returned to Washington.Nobody was killed in the attack, though Press Secretary jams Brady was left paralyzed. Alexander Meigs Haig was four star military General.
Ismail lugweyne.
