Civil-Military Relations, Comparison Between Turkey and Egypt Before and After Arab Spring. Essay Example

The relations of Civil-military literature in the Middle East are grouped into three periods. The first generation analysis started 1950s upto1970s, and it attempted to detach the increase of military coups happening in Middle East countries as well as the developing world (Bruneau et al., 34). From the overthrow of Iraq's established constitutional monarchy in 1936 by the acting chief of staff (Bakir Sidqi) to the takeover of government by Abdullah Saleh in 1978, the military's interceding into the political realm seemed to rule more than Middle Eastern nations’ responses. The military coup rash led to the golden era of relations of civil-military research that tried to detach and predict the civilian-military character in the Middle East during the time of chaos.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The second generation of civil-military relations in Middle East countries was ushered by the time of relative calmness in the realm politics. Scholars focused their attention from the 1980s to 2000s on expectations concerning the dearth military coups all over the Middle East nations in comparison to the preceding three decades. Examples of military coup like Hafiz al-Assad of Syria in 1979, Libya's Muammar Gaddafi in 1969 and Egypt's Hosni Mubarak's presidential rising after the assassination of Anwar Sadat in 1981 appeared to support the harmful as well as cyclical periods of horseback men snatching the throne (Bruneau et al., 59). During this time, researchers wanted to determine the reason why military relations were safeguarding regimes of politics instead of overturning them. Therefore, the secretive and opaque nature of autocratic parliaments all over the Arab Middle East steered to a dark age of civil-military relationships.

The civil-military relation of third generation started with the edited project by Carsten Jensen as well as Birth Hansen in 2008. During this time the military relations was shifting to a new stage ( Lutterbeck 39). The military served to guard the interest of the citizens instead of protecting leaders who had turned to be authoritarian presidents in the Middle East. The Arabs' watershed events awakened from 2010 to 2013, where the military relation had utterly changed their motives for protecting civilians.

Turkish democracy has developed, and Ankara feels bold enough to be an inspiration to Middle East countries (Lutterbeck 40). The transformation from staunchly secularist ally in military tutelage to a free model did not occur overnight. But turkey assumed that the Middle East as hostile and an unfamiliar region for its republican history. Turkey further developed its economy by allowing the free flow of goods and services from its neighbouring countries.

Military in Egypt gained political power in 1952 when free officer movement headed by Nasser overthrew the Western controlled monarchy, which was corrupt. He ruled Egypt from 1956 to 1970. His rule marked the enrichment of the military's political and economic position in Egyptian society. The chaotic era occurred where the twenty-year arms agreement of Egypt with the Soviet Union and its catastrophic wars in 1956 up to 1961. Egypt's defeat allowed Nasser to remove the military's corps. This was the turning point in civil-military relations in decreasing their political influence. After the death of Nasser in 1971, Anwar, the deputy president assumed power. He revised many policies implemented by Nasser. The significant changes were introducing multi-party systems, signing a peace treaty with Israel and opening up Egypt's economy (Kaya 26). Islamist assassinated Sadat in 1981, and his deputy president assumed power immediately. Mubarak focused more on fighting infiltration of society by Islamist and their influence. Mubarak attempted to depoliticize the military by dismissing the defense minister and giving military many economic privileges to get political control.

Supreme Council of the Armed Forces was brought to power in 2011, where an underhanded attempt to preserve economic privilege by the military that was provided to it by the overthrown ruler. These attempts included preventing revision of the formed constitution, prohibiting protests against military and opposing political and economic reforms.

In 2012, Morsi was supported by Muslims and was elected to be president which intensified power struggle. This put military relation in undiscovered territory. In 2013 his supporters refused to accept the legitimacy military supported the interim government. More street protests continued where both sides used deadly weapons (Lutterbeck 49). Therefore the analysis of Egypt military, civil-military relations is still challenging and yet an agent.

Economic role

Militaries in the Middle East frequently entertained a stable position in communities vie deep entrance in a broad national economy. Military possessing industries are an exemplar of the military as an economic actor ahead stern military spending or else military sector. An example of military possessing industries is the Turkish Armed Force, as well as a pension fund. They are having emerged to an enormous conglomerate associated with different sectors, the Turkish Armed force Foundation and in Egypt industrialization of Arab Organization (Uysal, 120). The Turkish military is a neo-mercantilist capitalist entrepreneur as the turkey tried to change the economy. Despite changes in the constitution, the budget for the military is rarely exposed to public scrutiny.

The two countries had a perception that corporate interest is very crucial to their economy with the inclusion of lucrative benefits in the determination of their military behaviours. The militaries emphasized too in the political value of pacts of politics as a tool of solving conflicts among the military leaders and rulers for power without loose of economic interest. As the economic concerns informed the politic in the maneuvering of the army leaders, the Egyptian and Turkish military control of industries was bound to affect the economies of the two countries (Kuru, 111). The military of Egypt had control over the companies owned by the state, and its protection powers were mighty to reforms of international pressure and neoliberal privatization under the forces of Mubarak. During this time, the military still had to discipline the workers who strike with brutal sanctions and had to resist the legislation. Relating military to civilian enterprise, it held up great benefits to both Turkey and Egypt subsidies as well as other privileges. However, the civilian enterprise in Egypt benefited greatly from sharing of technology from the military.

It is not known how the military control the Egyptian economy, and scholars estimated this control to range between 5 to 40 percent of the entire economy. The Egyptian army economy securities are categorized as nation secrets and are just expected in any accuracy. Due to this, it is hard to determine the impact of the role of the military in the Egyptian national economy. Recently Jordan's army has become a player in technology production by military and international arms (Gunn, 137). These armies have partnered with other foreign companies such as Turkey's military to manufacture the whole lot in an armored vehicle to prepackage rations. In Turkey, the role of the army in the economy is hidden too. In to shape the military’s relationship with other communities, it is essential to control economic resources.

Civil-Military Relations in the Middle East, Egypt, and Turkey

The comparison between these two military countries with their regards to both political and economic factors reveals similarities and differences as discussed below:

Similarities

Both the Turkish and Egyptian militaries are characterized with elements of taking in a significant politics interests as well as state affairs, the tendency of diminishing and dominating the life of politics, the intervention of politics to ensure a change of set rules of the game to benefit from it and acting mainly as coherent actors (Satana 280).

By analyzing both histories if these militaries, it is well revealed that they have broad interests in politics as well as the country's affairs. The military's important role in constructing its respective modern state has resulted in claiming of their rights in the setting of the rules and regularities guarding the political game. Mohamed Ali established independent Egypt, which was inseparable since birth as reliable as well as the establishment of the substantial modern military for that time. Therefore the fighting of power of the colonial and the ousting of corruption weak king provided a way for the establishment of the army of Egypt Arab Republic. For seeking dominance and success, movement of the free officers adopted new laws which were designed for resources and power redistribute among the affected population hence assuming the role of the ruler of the country (Satana 284). Thus following the military's war participation, the officers believed that they were coherent actors who were entitled to the rights of politics hence dominated the politics. In similarity the Turkish officer, Mustafa brought the corruption as well as the weak empire of Ottoman to an end through the establishment of independent and modern Republic in 1923 in Turkey. Therefore the military army dominated the scene of politics and the state affairs.

Both Turkish and Egyptian militaries revealed considerable interest in the political change of the rules to ensure that they benefit from them after the intervention (Satana 289). The army of Turkey clearly showed this as it launched more invasions on top of established modern Turkey by Ataturk. Ataturk instituted amendments in the constitution and legal bodies to cover the threats coming from the military. He adopted a law to prohibit military posts as well as posts of the government. In comparison, the army of Egypt took almost the same style for ensuring that it maintains its autonomy. The Egyptian military still employed interventions in the constitution amendments frequently. For instance, it engaged the issuing of several provisions and declarations of constitutions immediately as it attained power.

Also, the two militaries had a collective effect on political life. These armies interfered with the political life both indirect and direct in their coups to enhance their positions in the amendment of the constitutions and to diminish of the political life to enable them to be the dominators of political actors (Taylor 24). This happened in 1970s crackdowns and 1980s to both leftist and rightist parties in politics, respectively. For example, Kenan of Turkey adopted different procedures after the coup of 1980 to ban the features associated with political diversity among NGOs and political parties. Furthermore, the military in power weakened political parties hence enhancing political equation in the military position.

Likewise to Egypt, the military used the same procedure for the Command Council on its promises of inaugurating real democratic life which was used in holding the elections of parliament in 1953 (Taylor 30). Although the military differed a bit from the course after 2011 intervention, in 2013 and after overthrowing of President Morsi, the army got gradually rid to all leaders of liberal and took harsh actions on security as well as cracking down of political parties. Indirectly, it used the war to nationalize the political life aspects and legislate demonstration law of an unconstitutional which had prisoned man citizens in the prisons of Liberal and Islamist activities.