Why did the military assume a leading political role in some Southeast Asian states after 1945, but not others?

Authors Avatar by reesacorrie (student)

Why did the military assume a leading political role in some Southeast Asian states after 1945, but not others?

The extent to which the military assumed leading political roles in Southeast Asian states after 1945 varies according to the internal and external factors affecting the political scene of that country. The reasons why military intervention in politics occurred in some states but not others fall under two main categories, the internal characteristics of the military itself and the external environment in which it operates.

In general, Indonesia and Burma had the strongest militaries that assumed leading political roles due to similar internal and external characteristics. Militaries of Philippines, Vietnam and Thailand… Singapore and Malaysia

Internal factors can be analysed under values and attitudes of military officers and their conception of their role in society as well as the material interests of military officers as members of a corporate body, of a social class or as individuals. The values and attitudes of military officers are largely influenced by the historical experience of the army to which they belong. Some armies, like those of Singapore and Malaysia, were established during the colonial period and were indoctrinated to accept the Western liberal concepts of apolitical professionalism and civilian supremacy. However, there were armies formed in order to fight colonialism like in Indonesia and Burma, armies which were originally guerilla forces carrying out successful revolutions like in Vietnam and armies which had their origins in political traditional states and had always perceived their role in political terms, like in Thailand.

In Indonesia and Burma, nationalist leaders formed military forces to carry out armed struggle against the colonial power, though the British in Burma averted armed struggle. Although indigenous officers from the two colonial armies were incorporated into national forces after independence, they were controlled by the officers of the nationalist force, whose basic orientation was towards political activity and who were not inhibited by any belief in apolitical professionalism. This eventually led to the militaries in Indonesia and Burma taking on strong political positions. The communist army in Vietnam was even more directly political in orientation as it was originally founded as a guerilla movement against French colonialism and later in successor governments. The army was led directly by communist party leaders and their senior officers and military coups occurred or were attempted often, suggesting the influence of the army in politics. The traditional army in Thailand was gradually modernized but officers never adopted Western liberal doctrines about the army’s proper role and the army not only regularly intervened but also dominated politics during the years since the 1932 coup. Hence Thai officers have never experienced a time when the military believed as a matter of principle that it should not involve itself in politics. During the colonial period In Singapore and Malaysia, indigenous officer recruits were given a professional military education. From here, officers imbibed the apolitical military ideals of the liberal West and aspired to become professional career officers loyal to their civilian superiors. The armies in these two states did not deviate substantially from their original non-political role. However, in the Philippines, despite having professional training, military officers quickly adapted themselves to the military’s expanded role in government after the declaration of Martial Law in 1972.

Join now!

The inclination of the military to intervene in politics was also determined by material interests of the officers. Military intervention in Indonesia was a result of the inability of the central government to provide adequate funds for the armed forces. This opened the way to the introduction of Martial Law and the direct participation of military officers in the government. Similarly, military reintervention in Thailand occurred in 1976 where military officers were concerned that ‘democratic’ governments had failed to ensure the military’s material welfare by ordering the closure of American military bases and thus bringing about a reduction in ...

This is a preview of the whole essay