The Man On Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics

by Samuel E. Finer

The role of the military in a society raises a number of issues: How much separation should there be between a civil government and its army? Should the military be totally subordinate to the polity? Or should the armed forces be allowed autonomy in order to provide national security? In our times, the dangers of military dictatorships have become clear, but developing countries often lack the administrative ability and societal unity to keep the state functioning in an orderly and economically feasible manner without pronounced militaristic intervention.

Genres: Politics, History, Military Fiction, Nonfiction, War, Political Science, International Relations

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1962

Reviews

[Ali Hassan · Rating 4 out of 5]

Reading this was much needed to comprehend the mosaic of statehood and the role of the military in it. More than 90 countries around the world have experienced coups d'etat by their military generals in the previous century, and Pakistan is one of them. The wondering question, however, wasn't to know why a general takeover the government of a country, but to know why should he be subordinated to the civilian government of his country? To my astonishment, there has never been a single coup in a country wherein liberal democracy was intact.
Then questions arise - what kind of political setup does appeal to a general to hold the reins of a country and what are the instrumental methods he uses to intervene in the politics of his country? This book tries to explore such questions and the three main levels that are used by a general to intervene in politics.

[Timothy · Rating 3 out of 5]

The book is very much a product of its time period, but some (but limited) applications to today's information age. Much of the book consists of definitions to terms that Samuel uses in later passages. The irony is that Samuel doesn't seem to incorporate some of the principles regarding the disposition of the military to intervene into the actual interventions examined. He emphasizes the political culture of a country and dispositions seem to be an afterthought - despite spending a good deal of time discussing them. One key idea he presents, that I believe has much applicability today, is the mobility of ideas within a society being a reflection of the level of political culture. In today's information age, ideas can have a huge amount of mobility. The other part of the book that's difficult is the lack of context Samuel provides regarding many of his examples - he's a smart guy and has a breadth and depth of understanding much deeper than mine, so it was hard to understand what he was talking about at time. That all said, the text provided an interesting take on the analysis and circumstances of military interventions and a legitimate critique of Huntington's work. That said...it addressed military intervention...not necessarily the role of the military in politics or civil-military relations...

[Sami · Rating 4 out of 5]

Clearly, Finer was a brilliant scholar of his time, a passionate political scientist, yet somewhat underrated. This book provides a systematic approach to understanding why militaries intervene and how such interventions are sustained. It is a book all about military coups and military dictatorships. By analyzing 20th-century coups and the spread of military regimes, where the military dominated the civil and political machinery of the state, Finer has deduced systemic key similarities and categorized those nations accordingly post-independence.

The core of the book lies in the conclusion that where political culture is weak, education standard is low, while creative minority are lacking behind in dynamic, diverse, and intersectional analysis, military intervenes in the politics. (last one factor is my interjection)


The historical observations at the very start were illuminating:
1. From 1917 to 1940, 13 countries gained independence; however, 6 descended into dictatorships or military regimes.
2. From 1947 to 1962, 15 countries gained independence as democratic states. Out of these 15 countries, 9 fell into a vicious trap of military coups and dictatorships.

All these countries lay in particular geographies such as the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Latin America, where military interventions are numerous. In all these countries, where military interventions occurred in the last 100 years, the historical context was not fully democratic; either they were colonial oligarchies or ruled by a narrow elite. No democratic culture existed there. After independence, they followed the same patterns, and the narrow elite became more powerful. Countries with strengthened democracies are more difficult targets for military rulers to capture.

The book highlights that historically, countries in the Middle East, Southeast Asia, and Latin America have been particularly susceptible to military rule due to their lack of entrenched democratic practices and ongoing power imbalances post-independence. These regions were characterized by colonial oligarchies or narrow elite rule, which left little room for democratic culture to take root. Post-independence, these nations perpetuated existing power structures, leading to the narrow elite gaining even more control. Conversely, countries that developed robust democratic institutions have proven more resistant to military coups.

Finer has succinctly analyzed Pakistan, Argentina, Libya, Egypt, and other nations that were dictatorial at the time of writing this book. This is a great book for understanding the dynamics of the 20th century.

The book outlines key factors that enable military interventions, including centralized command, hierarchical discipline, advanced communication, and societal isolation. However, military regimes often struggle with technical governance issues and lack legitimacy. According to Finer, this leads to eventual democratic restoration.

The book categorizes military interventions into four levels: 1. Influence, 2. Pressure tactics, 3. Displacement, 4. Direct overthrow.

Finer noted that the intensity of intervention often depended on the country's political maturity:
1. If a country is educated, and the youth is mobilized and aware, the military can only advance to Level 1, i.e., influence.
2. In countries with a weak political culture, the military progresses through Levels 1, 2, and 3.
3. In countries with minimal political culture, a direct military coup occurs or has occurred.

[Jl5841 · Rating 5 out of 5]

Amongst rapid decolonization by European powers, Finer sought to answer why so many new nations were falling to their military's whims. His answer to this question is Socratic, for 'instead of asking why the military engage politics, we ought surely ask why they would ever do otherwise.'

Finer elaborates the realist logic of civil-military relations, and is an important starting point for anyone interested in the subject or that of regime change, coups, and perhaps revolution.

That said, it is dated. Nearly 80 years have passed since its publication, but the fact that it is still cited today puts it right up their with "Arms and Influence" and "The Soldier and the State."

[Gift · Rating 3 out of 5]

This sounds a little bit like Huntington but it is not. One of the reviewers on Goodreads wrote that this book is a product of its time and I completely agree. I cannot say a lot about the empirical part that I did not read (again) but I found a lot of useful information in the theoretical one. It is fascinating to see how this field of study flourished in the second half of the 20th century.
I still don’t get the title but I appreciated a lot of Finer´s arguments.


3.5*

[Dale · Rating 3 out of 5]

I was doing some research on the Turkish military and this book was referenced in one of the readings. I have heard of Huntington and Elliott but had missed this writer about the political - military relationship. Good book that lays out the relationships by country and talks about military to political transitions after rebellions and such. Very interesting if not a bit dated.

[David · Rating 3 out of 5]

I had a hard time getting through this book. Perhaps its too specialized for my taste....

[Aftab Kayani · Rating 4 out of 5]

for thorough understanding of situation we confront

[Çağrı Koşak]

Good

[Amanullah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Lays out a basic framework. Critical question: why don't military coups happen more often than they actually do?!

[Marwan Asmar]

An excellent book on the role of military in politics all over the world. An academic textbook, it is well-developed and written in a style that is easy to read and enjoyable