The major issues raised in modern theories of civil-military relations are rooted in Harold D. Lasswell's developmental construct of 'the garrison-state.' In a world in which modern military technology would make civilians as vulnerable to armed attack as military personnel would be, Lasswell projected that 'specialists in violence,' i.e., military elites, would add management to their repertoire of skills and would become a major force in ruling elites. Among their skills, they would count the manipulation of symbols, in the interest of mobilizing the entire population for defense efforts. Income would be somewhat equalized, in order to reduce opposition to the regime by the underprivileged. Economic production would be regularized and geared primarily toward military rather than consumption goods. Democratic elections would be replaced by plebiscite. What was new in Lasswell's thinking was not that military forces would play a major role in the governance of a state. Indeed, there is a large literature on the role of the military lin politics. This literature, however, focusses on pre-industrial nations. What was new in Lasswell's construct was that, as part of the normal course of development, military elites might gain ascendency in modern industrial states. (Author)
Models of Contemporary American Civil-Military Relations
1979
41 pages
Report
No indication
English
Contemporary Civil-Military Relations: Is the Republic in Danger?
Online Contents | 1995
|Book Reviews - Choosing Your Battles: American Civil-Military Relations and the Use of Force
Online Contents | 2005
|Civil-Military Relations in America's Early Space Program
British Library Conference Proceedings | 1998
|