What would happen when nationalist

mobilization takes place in

an authoritarian regime that places a very
strong emphasis on the
role of the military in society?
This is question of militarism.
Militarism has been discussed as the
origin of major wars.
The focus was on German
militarism before World War I, or for that
matter Japanese
militarism before World War II.
And the question
here is what militarism is, and how it
relates to warfare.
Now, first of all, let us discuss, what is
militarism?
What does this mean?
Militarism is an
ideology that puts first of all a very
strong
emphasis on the role of the military in
politics.
Under militarist regimes the military
performs an independent body
that cannot be restrained by civic
institutions such as parliament.
The prototype of militarism goes back to
the day when the General Staff of Prussia.
Which is part of Germany right now, played
a major role in
achieving victories and achieving the
unification of Germany.
The central role of the general staff in
Prussia led to regimentation of the whole
society.
That was modeled after the national army
in Germany.
Another example would be the Japanese
military, what was called Gunbu in
Japanese.
Again, the position of the Japanese
military in the
Japanese government was insured against
any intervention from the civilians.
As it was raised directly under the
control of
the emperor which could not be touched by
the parliament.
And this independence of the military
leads
to another character of militarism which
is the absence of civilian control.
For civilian control means, that civilian
representatives decide key decision making
that relates
to warfare and security.
And if in the military, has
an independent, independence over key

decision
making, and that means the civilian
control Is ruled out.
Additionally one might argue that national
army has served
as a role model of the whole society.
The structure of the military became
the prototype of the whole country.
And each institution in the society
such as public schools, were modeled after
the model of the national army.
The glory and heroism that was attached to
the national
army, became the center of political
integration under the militarist regimes.
Now, this might simply sound
like an authoritarian regime where civic
participation is severely limited.
Which is true, by the way.
But we also have to pay attention to the
fact that people living under militarist
regimes did in many ways passively or even
openly support the nationalist cause.
Although they did not have political
opportunity to participate
in key decision making, they identified
with the glory of
the national army and the victories that
was delivered by the Junta.
Now let's move on to another question and
that's does militarism lead toward to war?
Is militarism the key cause for starting
warfare?
Now it is true that German militarism
played
a large role in the beginning of World War
one.
As military consideration took a
predominate role.
And somehow kicked out political
considerations that might be more prudent
in the management of international
relations.
Military strategy became the paramount
state objective in achieving security, and
without civilian institution to control
the decision of the general staff in
Germany.
German militarism had a direct
relationship
with the outbreak of World War I.
Similar arguments can be made about
Japanese militarism.
Now in this particular case, in this
particular case, Japan did have more
representative organs.
That could somehow restrain the decision
of the government,
based on the parliament of course.
But, like I said, the military was

somehow immune, to any intervention, from

the parliament.
And with this independence, they
successfully installed an institution
starting from 1937.
Where the military took over the political
regime as such, and represented the
government such as the parliament became
essentially rubber stamp organization,
that simply followed the decisions made
by the Junta.
The two experiences: German militarism and
Japanese militarism, led to a widespread
belief that
civilian control of the military is the
key measure
to control not only the military, but also
control the possibility of warfare.
The argument goads that if there was
civilian control in Germany before World
War I, for civilian control of the
military before World War II in Japan.
They may not have been engaged in
self-destrctive warfare.
Now, the question leads to another
theoretical question here:
Does civilian control really limit the
possibility of war?
Now here we find a paradox.
For when we discuss about civilian
control,
we are actually talking about two things.
One of course is a classical argument
where the civilians
through the actions of the parliament
restrain the decision of the military.
Prime ministers or presidents who are
responsible to the public would somehow
restrain
the activity of the military, which might
lead to excessive and unnecessary warfare.
Damage is not only limited to Japan or
Germany.
After the Second World War,
in the United States, which is of course,
a democracy, there was this fear that the
military industrial complex would lead to
aggressive warfare.
And here even the American president,
President Eisenhower warned to the public
of
the calamities that might ensue from the
growth of the military industrial complex.
Here we are making an argument based on
the assumption that the military prefers
war and
the civilians are far more restrained and
when
it comes to the issue to war and peace.
But that may not be so.

Samuel Huntington, one of the renowned

American political scientists argued that
military professionalism is also a source
for constraining military behavior.
Huntington was essential a rather
conservative political scientist,
and he ar, his argument, made in The
Solider and the State was that
if the military follows its own
professional lines, then they would
refrain from making excessive commitment
to aggressive warfare.
On this line of argument, military
professionalism as a
source of civilian control, is almost the
opposite of the
traditional arguments about civilian
control, which asserts that the
role of the civilian is critical in
restraining military order.
In effect, Hunting-, Huntington is arguing
that
the action of the military can be
restrained
by the military, itself.
Now of course, that was not the case in
Germany or Japan.
But if you take a look at other actions
taken by the
military then we can also say that
Huntington's argument may hold water.
It is rather convincing as well.
So we are talking about two kinds of
civilian control.
One that is asserted from the civilians.
And the other one, that is asserted by the
military itself.