The Hindu Business Line : Is military rule more efficient?

In the second leg of his presidency, Dr Rajendra Prasad, in a public speech, gave vent to his distress at the degeneration that was already evident in public life, and warned that the crumbling of values and the decaying of institutions, if allowed to continue, would lead to people losing faith in democracy and looking for ‘the man on the white horse’ to save them from the clutches of corrupt politicians and oppressive bureaucracy.

In doing so, he was only reiterating the common belief that the military had somehow the capabilities to enforce discipline, restore order and run the government with the needed efficiency and effectiveness and deliver better goods faster than civilian governments.

Is this so? There has not as yet been any comprehensive evaluation of the difference that a military takeover makes to the governance of the country concerned. It can not be for want of a large enough sample to make meaningful findings possible. At some time or other, 60 countries (22 in Africa, 19 in Latin America, 13 in Asia and six in Europe) have been under military rule, and even today, Egypt, Fiji, Myanmar, Libya, Pakistan and Thailand are, in form or in substance, under regimes controlled by the military.

From an extensive surfing of the web, it is seen that the available literature is of two kinds: The propagandist variety seeking to establish that military dictatorships are necessarily evil; or tracts confined to some limited aspects such as human rights or the functioning of the judiciary or the media.

What is needed is a study to find out in a well-documented fashion the performance of military regimes in comparison with democratically-elected governments.

Such a study should also include the extent to which conditions within the countries have been affected following the military takeover by the actual support extended, an attitude of indifference shown or sanctions imposed, by governments and international bodies.

Appalled

Absent a definitive appraisal, one has to go by impressions. Even a cursory glance at India’s neighbours — Bangladesh, Myanmar and Pakistan — is enough to conclude that military rule is not all that of a wonderful answer to people’s prayers as it is often made out to be.

Spells of military governments have not been able to lift Bangladesh from poverty, or make up for the damage to the economy and governance due to lurching from one man-made crisis or natural disaster to another. Myanmar, as a country under the rule of a military junta for decades, ought to have been a model of progress and prosperity by now, whereas even charitable observers are appalled by the sore straits that country is in.

Pakistan has been under military rule for 32 of its 60 years after it attained Independence, and should have been at the top of the world if the military were that competent and effective in running the polity. It has been in poor shape since General Pervez Musharraf took over the reins since 1999, and its economy would have collapsed but for its being propped up by a billion dollars a year given by the US.

There have been reports of mismanagement in the utilisation of the money as well. The Taliban and jehadi terrorist groups are thriving within its territory. The military brass is said to have beaten politicians in corruption. Even with regard to Benazir Bhutto’s murder, the ruling clique has shown itself to be in a state of utter confusion.

Give me democracy any time. With all its raucousness, has it not put India on the path to becoming the world’s third largest economy in terms of purchasing power parity?

B. S. RAGHAVAN

More Stories on : Economy | Politics | Offhand

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Toward easier interest rates?

Is military rule more efficient?

Getting real about global warming

Dollar decline and solutions

SEZ as practical path to development

All in the game

Focus on services in WTO

Bio-fuel crops