Thinking beyond Huntington

Samuel P. Huntington's book The Soldier and the State popularly defined military professionalism to include subservience of the armed forces to civilian authorities. Subsequent works on civil-military relations in Latin America, Southasia and Southeast Asia – by Alfred Stepan, Amos Perlmutter, Morris Janowitz, Harold D Lasswell and others – widened the definition of military professionalism. One of the conclusions of these works was that in places where political and civil societies are weak, the militaries' role could not be confined to defence and fighting wars. Being modern and developed, many militaries in these regions would also be engaged in affairs of the state. Nevertheless, civilian control over militaries continues to be widely considered a marker of 'good' civil-military relations and of military professionalism. It is, for example, an important variable for being recognised as professional military by NATO.

The emphasis on viewing civil-military relations purely from an administrative perspective, however, is problematic. Simply asking who is 'boss' is not enough. What about countries where militaries engage in oppression at the behest of its political leadership? Even if the military is under civilian control, it can still have great influence in society and close links with a largely militaristic political class. It is therefore important to examine Southasia's militaries' internal engagements and how certain groups are marginalised by the state with the support of the army. The increasing militarisation of societies throughout Southasia has turned the civil-military balance into a more complex matter.