Nature Of Government Intervention Video
Government Intervention- Micro Topic 2.8 Nature Of Government Intervention.
Share on Tumblr 1. Luckham means that sub-Saharan African armies were created, organised and trained under colonial tutelage. Further, armies which were created by the colonial powers were used to establish the rule of the colonial powers.
Support our work
The army also existed as a visible demonstration to the populace of the coercion which was the ultimate basis of colonial rule. Initially therefore, one can say, that African armies had http://pinsoftek.com/wp-content/custom/newspeak/1936-berlin-olympics-jesse-owenss-aryan-race.php little concern with the defence of the state, this was left to the metropolitan powers.
Finally, upholding the status quo was the prime concern of armies in sub-Saharan Africa. Military traditions as they bear on modern military service are typically foreign to the armies of Africa. Further, Bretton suggests that due Nature Of Government Intervention the relative under-development of the African armies, the primary expectation of the officer corps, the ranks and officer candidates are concerned with prompt promotion into positions to be vacated by Europeans.
Moreover, because such things as houses and pensions had to be bargained for, African armies became highly politicized prior to and after independence. Consequently, in pursuit of these goals few of the armed forces, says Bretton, could fall back on the time-hounoured rationale of national defense.
The early army coups according to First, concerned with pay strikes, to secure better condition for the army. Later, coups however, embodies larger political objectives and initiated through military take-over of governments, or extracted something from the old one. Regardless as Nature Of Government Intervention whether a distinction is drawn between the earlier coups and the later ones, the conclusion which one will arrive at is that their objectives constituted what could be loosely termed sectional, as the whole of society would not benefit materially or otherwise from Natuer action.
This is also one of the reasons why when the military plays the role of government it performs no better than the civilians it replaced. Ruth First also puts forward the theory which is given a more detailed consideration by Luckham; that the internal characteristics of the army account for the inability Intervrntion the army to rule as a united body.
There are a number of plausible reasons as to why this is the Intervejtion. The general agreement, however, is that once the military does not possess an ideology through which it can define its policy and make decisions in Nature Of Government Intervention of military procedures, they soak up social conflict. Armies throughout the continent have shown that they are no less prone to divisive loyalties as are politicians and parties. Once the political system divides on communal lines, the division will take the army in power with it.
What is very important here is that the seizure of power itself destroys the strongest unifying feature of the army. In addition, there exist acute societal and military factionalism which inevitably binds the hands of the leaders in the Nature Of Government Intervention forces for they have to remain vigilant in order to prevent plots against their continued rule.
By allowing a mixture of civilian and military actors in the political sphere, it had not come as a great surprise to find that demands within society and the government ultimately militates against any meaningful societal programmed economic development or the creation of a stable political system. Another dimension which has been developed by S. Once in power, the military continues to see its primary function as moderating and managing Nature Of Government Intervention.
The stress in the type of system is mainly on the economic, for the stability and development of a meaningful type to take place; equal stress must be given to political and social factors as well as the economic ones.
Navigation menu
Each coup has its own characteristics, motivations, objectives and class or tribal characters as well as its own specific relationship to external factors. The causes of military coups in Third World countries, and especially Africa, have to do Govwrnment the weakness of the political structures and processes in all post-colonial states, and institutional role of the military in these societies. Since the military are the traditional guards of the state, they intervene in the political process as a means of arresting political instability and ensuring the integrity of the country any time this is threatened as a result of political and social tensions.
Secondly, the military are the only institution which can force themselves into power as an organised unit without much opposition since they possess the monopoly of the instruments of violence and can confront any Nature Of Government Intervention of resistance to their intervention. However, some military regimes soon prove to be as Nature Of Government Intervention as the regime they overthrew and their reforms gave way to intolerance and totalitarianism Intefvention dictatorship.]
I join. It was and with me. We can communicate on this theme.
In my opinion it is obvious. I would not wish to develop this theme.
Excuse, that I interfere, but you could not paint little bit more in detail.
It is removed (has mixed section)
In my opinion you are not right. Let's discuss.