Military vs. civilian government three case studies : Brazil, Ghana, and Turkey

This study sets out to answer the question, "Does it make a difference whether or not politicians, technicians, and bureaucrats wear uniforms?" in the context of the developing nations. The applicability of the civilian-military governmental typology to the study of the politics of the developing nations is examined. By testing the validity of the two assumptions upon which this typology is based, it was possible to determine the extent to which civilian and military governments actually differed in Brazil, Ghana, and Turkey. The validity of these two assumptions - (1) that military men carry into politics a distinctive set of values, capabilities, and administrative techniques, and (2) that military governments lack legitmacy - was tested by comparing the personnel, policy orientations, and governing styles of civilian and military regimes from the three nations. Military government was defined as a government formally headed by military men. Brazil, Ghana, and Turkey were selected for study because of their dissimilarity in most features except that each has, at some time since World War II, been directly governed by the military. The comparison of the personnel - heads-of-state and those holding cabinet or ministerial posts - of civilian and military regimes revealed that a high degree of military professionalism exists in the developing nations, which serves to distinguish military from civilian values and capabilities. However, it was also revealed that in the developing nations, military men do not always conform to type when placed in governing positions. Nor did the analysis of military and civilian government personnel show any consistent differences along any other parameter. The set of quantitative policy orientation indicators, used in addition to the personnel comparison, to test the validity of Assumption 1, did not reveal any consistent policy emphasis related to either civilian or military governance. Thus, Assumption 1 appears to have little validity. Assumption 2, that military governments lack the legitimacy of civilian governments, was tested by comparing the extent to which civilian and military governments employed 'coercive' versus 'consultative' governing styles. Again, this parameter revealed little consistent difference between civilian and military governance. Thus, the answer to the question, "Does it make a difference whether or not politicians, technicians, and bureaucrats wear uniforms?" is no. It appears that to make little consistent vzhether or not political affairs are in the hands of civilians or soldiers in the developing nations.