Free Essay Sample «International Issues: The Influence of Military Conflicts on Politics»

«International Issues: The Influence of Military Conflicts on Politics»

Introduction

Military conflict is an authorized body by an upper society to use deadly force in protecting the country from threats. Other than protection, the military proceeds political plan and promotes the economy of a country through imperialism. It also controls the social mechanisms internally. Military is a community because they have their own people, education, hospitals, and judicial systems. In general, the military society has all aspects of any other normal society. In the history of humanity, all states and nations require military forces for various needs. Every nation and state in turn determines the functions of its military force to provide peace during the war. As a requirement, the military is capable of implementing the state’s policies on defense. The politicians make the policies but the military executes them through an expert. The military therefore give the required control of the made policies, translate them into tasks and express them in orders understood by the subordinates (Feitlowitz 124).

Thesis statement: military conflict, with the help of the UN conflict resolution mechanism, is of great benefit to the human society because it facilitates the understanding and creation of democracy in a country.

Claims: Analysis of International Issues

In most cases, people suppose that the military is able to introduce democracy in the country. Many countries face this very big problem since there is a lot of military influence on the civil politics, which promoted the UN conflict resolution committee to intervene. The military and the public have formed relations ever since the World War II and military has played a major role in politics. Military and politics have had different forms of associations. The officers in the military force influence the government through their activities to meet their specified goals as a community. The military also threatens the public through blackmailing to reach their objectives. The third form of association comes through the authority of the military; it displaces a national system with certain additions, because the former system failed to perform some duties in its favor. The forth association is where the military officers decide to take over the government and operate instead. Here, the politician gives no political powers and all decisions come from the military (Felipe 47). For example, the study of Argentina and Turkey after the World War II shows the military playing a role in politics and decision making of the country. All states were involved in spreading democracy in through their leaderships. The military in both Argentina and Turkey assumed a greater responsibility to control the domestic and foreign affairs of each country. The present analysis looks at the roles of each country’s armed force and its association with the politics after the World War II (Bengt 77).

Support

Military has played a role in the transformation of politics since the end of the World War II. The cases in the above-mentioned two countries give a better understanding of politics transformation and the role military played in it. The war created development in the negative path thereby triggering the military to go in and control foreign and domestic affairs. Immediately after war, the military in the two countries was seen as a very important body in political, social, and economic development (Feitlowitz 54).

Before the end of World War II, Argentina had democracy and the radical party was in power without any military influence. All the sectors witnessed development since the tradition of politics in Argentina, unlike Turkey which did not involve the military. The government of Argentina had never changed due to the influence of the military ever since 1861. During all this time, the radical party was in power until it ended in the 1930s. By the time the World War II ended, the coups had already overtaken the government. The military ruled for the following six decades with a lot of tension between them and the populists (Feitlowitz 58).

In sixteen years, the military led the country of Argentina. The country was full of force when it came to elections. The military made sure that the results of the elections were in their favor. To gain this the military had to use a lot of force. During the time the military ruled, it protected the poor against the populist demands on them. All along, Peron, who was a member of the GOU, became politically advantageous and after the military rule he got himself a seat as the secretary of labor and social welfare (Feroze 56).

By the time the World War II ended, Peron had risen to power through his interventions on masses. He had strong relationships with union leaders and fought for improvement of people’s welfare in the job places. The military officers were not happy with the ambitions Peron had in the government. The officers therefore took Peron and imprisoned him. The military move to mprison Peron was late because, he had already gained people’s support and was released due to numerous demonstrations. Peron fought the military through his tactics, such as the use of the thugs to get into power. Unlike Turkey where the military took control of the nation, Peron was a leader in Argentina who brought political, social, and financial developments. His policies were different from those of the military during its rule. He did not oppress people to attain the stability the country needed. He speeded up industrialization that had stagnated during the rule by the officers and prioritized the social welfare (Feitlowitz 87).

However, soon after Peron’s wife died, he started losing popularity mostly because he went against the Roman Catholic and many people were not for the idea. The economy went down due to the repression and another military coup was set. The military again held campaigns in the provinces and wanted Peron to get out of power. The military influenced Peron to go to exile so that the military could rule the country. Although Peron established the state, he did not lack some people who saw him as a dictator. However, even though he went to exile during the military rule after 1955, most rallies did not fail to mention his name for the good things he had done (Feitlowitz 88). During the military rule, terrorism was on the high to resist the opposition by the military. The military also took another approach to remain powerful.

When elections were conducted, a peronista candidate won the presidency seat and in 1973, Peron became the president. Having been in the military in the earlier days, he had never seen the reason as to why the civic society would have liberty. Even until his death, the disregard had never diminished (Bengt 83).

In 1976, another military coup was introduced and this was the most oppressive error in the history of the Argentineans. The rule involved many murder cases with men being thrown from the aircrafts into the ocean. During this time, the government was very brutal and incompetent. Social welfare went down and people suffered economically. No party had a say on the governance of the people and the constitution. The rule had tarnished its image completely due to the oppressiveness experienced under the military control (Feitlowitz 125).

In 1982, Leopoldo got into power and hoped to change the rule in the country. However, Falkland’s war arose in 1982 and led the Argentineans to surrender to the British troops. This victory was very beneficial in Britain since it favored the political destiny of Margaret Thatcher. On the other side, the war had very bad results for Argentina. Being a military regime, it was embarrassing to have lost to the British troops. This defeat led to the surrender of the president Galtieri. Falkland’s repercussion went on in Argentina, as powers shifted to the military stratocracy, which continued oppressing the country and destroyed the economy. After the elections that followed, a ruling gave the military resistance from suits from their dealings since 1976 (Felipe 123).

Peron’s legacy still existed until 1989 since he had proved to be a very strong leader interested in the welfare of the country. The businesses in the country were privatized into a free market economy. The president won the support of the army by releasing the convicted general. By doing this, he was sure that he would gain the support of the majority as he ruled the country. These interventions were successful to some extent, but some of the junior corps became disloyal to the government in the rule only to be very frustrated because they did not manage to overthrow the government on their own without the help of the senior commanders, who remained loyal to the government. Other than the six years a president was supposed to stay in term since 1853, the revised constitution in 1994 allowed for two successive provisions of four years (Feitlowitz 157).

In Turkey, military society played a very important role in the development of social, financial, and political organizations. The reputation of the military named and sustained a leader. The role of military in the earlier days was different from the role taken after 1945. Through the political organization in Turkey, the Turkish nomadic people settled in Anatolia, states developed and expanded their borders across the lands (Felipe 53).

There were two social political groups. These were the askeri and the uleya. Askeri was the ruling class while uleya had no role in the government directly. The askeri consisted of the military and sultan who formed and preserved Ottoman Empire. Wars during that time were external and the government was very united. Soon the empire expanded to more continents and struggled for political power increased. This made it difficult to find the Turkish state. Sultans tried all they could to control politics and this resulted in the creation of corps. These corps started playing a nonstop function in the associations of politics of the Turkish Empire. The sultans on the other hand tried all they could to restore political powers iin the empire and built a more modern military. To start with, these newly created military was able to reestablish the authority in the empire back to its position but reorganized the political powers among the group that ruled. On the other hand, the sultan got accusations due to many misfortunes that befell the empire when the military got exposed to western ideas, the increased interventions to the states subjects’ every day, and the failure of the government to increase military power and finances. The knowledge of foreign and domestic affairs passed to the army who soon after practiced the powers (Bengt 102).

The Democratic Party rose to power in 1950 thereby starting social rules that annoyed the corps. The social status decreased due to the political and economic policies by the Democratic Party leaders. By this time, the powers of the military personnel had declined. However, by 1960 the military power rose and led to the punishment of the DP members for their behaviors. Political powers were on the increase and measures were put in place to reduce them through changes in the personnel and institutions by the military. Soon military presence increased in the building of roads and factories. In 1961, the military community formed a coalition government and justice party was ascended to power between the years 1965 to 1971. In 1971 – 1973, the military controlled politics and set behaviors to govern politics in a manner that brought democracy to the nation (Felipe 94). The UN conflict resolution and the military conflict ceasefire deals were helping to solve the many problems that had evolved in the organization. These problems affected the social, financial, and cultural organizations of the country.

Counterarguments

The officer corps had to intervene and create a different government from that of the Democratic Party thereby creating several parties and coalition governments. The period between 1973 and 1980 had a lack of one-party regimes. The economy deteriorated in the 1970, which negatively affected the people, and socially things were not well (Wallensteen 123).

A new government was born in 1980 and continued until 1983. The military used their powers in the deteriorated social, economic, and political situations, dissolved the government by arresting the political leaders, and got themselves to power. It took three years while the military ruled Turkey. At first, under the military leadership, a civilian cabinet was appointed which carried the affairs of the country under its directions. It led to the establishment of Ulusu Cabinet since politicians did not like the military’s arrangements. During the military leadership, martial law act was amended to increase the political powers and the local levels controlled the central government. The military wanted to withdraw itself from the political powers and knew that this withdrawal would have very negative influence on relations internationally. They also knew that if politicians got to power, they would destroy them and fail to operate well. To prevent this, they laid down rules that policing had to follow. This led to a new constitution which gained the acception of the people and warned against reconstruction of the already existing political institutions (Feroz 73). 

The commanders of the martial law had the right to ban strikes for the first time as well as other public meetings. They would make sure that there were no demonstrations and no newspapers. These commanders had the rights to fire employees deemed undesirable without any room for appeal. The military choose the political parties they wanted in position as well as the leaders. These leaders would look after the political, social and economic situations of the country. The military took many measures in doing this. They made sure that even if they did not operate directly; their presence remained in all institutions whenever political decision-making took place (Robert 127). The military increased the powers of the national Security Council politically. This is because in this council they had a lot of representation and wanted to be the major decision makers of the country.

Conclusion

In conclusion, a military ceasefire deal was achieved with the efforts of the UN conflict resolution mechanisms, which helped the citizens of the country attain democracy. The military had suppressed the social violence that existed, and terminated the instability in the political arena. In sum, the military had achieved a lot since the national economy had returned, and headed on the right track. They had successfully restricted the political institutions in the country. During this time, they felt they were ready to allow any form of transition of politics into competitiveness. However, the military was determined to maintain what they had created and did not trust the politicians. They had worked a lot and could not take it if all their efforts went unrealized and drained. They had to control the leaders and the parties during the early times of post junta days to maintain the stability that existed in the country.

 

Our Customers' Testimonials

Current status

0

Preparing Orders

0

Active Writers

0

Support Agents

 
Order your 1st paper and get discount Use code first15
X
We are online - chat with us!