sample of an essay military rule is better than civilian rule

Privacy Overview

Necessary cookies are absolutely essential for the website to function properly. This category only includes cookies that ensures basic functionalities and security features of the website. These cookies do not store any personal information.

Any cookies that may not be particularly necessary for the website to function and is used specifically to collect user personal data via analytics, ads, other embedded contents are termed as non-necessary cookies. It is mandatory to procure user consent prior to running these cookies on your website.

DEBATE TOPIC: 10 Reasons Why Civilian Rule is Better than Military Rule ( Support and oppose the motion)

Write an argumentative essay on civilian rule is better than military rule.

Explore the debate on whether civilian rule is better than military rule . This article provides insights into the advantages of civilian governance, backed by expert opinions and historical examples.

Civilian rule and military rule are two contrasting forms of governance that have shaped the course of history and politics. The debate surrounding the effectiveness and suitability of these forms of rule has been ongoing for decades. In this article, we delve into the reasons why civilian rule is considered superior to military rule.

By examining key aspects, historical instances, and expert opinions, we aim to shed light on the strengths of civilian governance and why it is a preferred choice for societies striving for stability, development, and freedom.

FREE DOWNLOAD NOW

Debate on civilian rule is better than military rule

10 reasons why civilian rule is better than military rule

Civilian rule is a fundamental aspect of democratic governance, and it has several advantages over military rule. Here are 10 reasons why civilian rule is better than military rule:

• Accountability : Civilian rule ensures that elected officials are accountable to the people, as they are chosen through free and fair elections. This accountability mechanism is absent in military rule, where the military leadership is not directly accountable to the public
• Civilian control of the military : Civilian rule allows for the establishment of a clear chain of command, with civilians in control of the military. This ensures that the military is subordinate to the larger purposes of the nation, rather than the other way around
• Protection of human rights : Civilian rule is more likely to protect human rights and uphold the rule of law, as it is based on democratic principles and the protection of individual freedoms
• Economic development : Civilian rule is more conducive to economic development, as it fosters a stable political environment and encourages investment and growth
• Peaceful transfer of power : Civilian rule allows for a peaceful transfer of power through elections, ensuring that political change occurs through democratic means rather than through force or violence
• Respect for international law : Civilian rule is more likely to respect international law and cooperate with other nations, as it is based on diplomacy and cooperation rather than force and coercion
• Promotion of democracy : Civilian rule promotes the spread of democracy and democratic values, as it demonstrates the benefits of democratic governance and encourages other nations to adopt similar systems
• Protection of minority rights : Civilian rule is more likely to protect the rights of minority groups, as it is based on the protection of individual freedoms and the promotion of diversity
• Reduction of corruption : Civilian rule is more likely to reduce corruption, as it promotes transparency and accountability in government
• Promotion of peace and stability : Civilian rule is more likely to promote peace and stability, as it fosters a stable political environment and encourages dialogue and compromise rather than force and coercion.
• JAMB Regularization for NYSC Registration & Mobilization 2024 Batch A, B and C PCMs
• How To Contact JAMB For Complaints, Inquiries and Other issues

DEBATE TOPIC: Civilian Rule is Better than Military Rule

Civilian rule refers to a government led by individuals who are not affiliated with the military. It is characterized by a focus on democracy, human rights, and the rule of law. Military rule, on the other hand, involves the direct control of a nation by the armed forces. While both forms of governance have been prevalent in various parts of the world, there are compelling reasons why civilian rule is widely regarded as the superior option.

Advantages of Civilian Rule

Democratic principles and representation.

Civilian rule inherently promotes democratic principles, ensuring that the government is accountable to the people it governs. Elected officials represent the interests of the citizens, creating a system where policies and decisions are made with the welfare of the populace in mind. This democratic process encourages transparency, participation, and a sense of ownership among citizens.

Protection of Human Rights

Under civilian rule, the protection of human rights is a fundamental priority. Constitutions and legal frameworks are designed to safeguard individual freedoms and prevent abuse of power. This commitment to human rights fosters an environment of equality and justice, allowing citizens to live without fear of oppression.

Sustainable Socioeconomic Development

Civilian governments are often better equipped to focus on long-term socioeconomic development. Policies can be formulated and executed based on comprehensive assessments of the nation’s needs and resources. Moreover, civilian rule promotes a stable environment that attracts foreign investments, encourages innovation, and supports economic growth.

Peaceful Conflict Resolution

Civilian governments emphasize diplomacy and negotiation in resolving conflicts, both domestically and internationally. Open dialogue and peaceful negotiations are preferred methods for resolving disputes, reducing the likelihood of armed conflicts that can arise under military rule.

Strengthening International Relations

Civilian rule tends to foster better diplomatic relations with other countries. International cooperation and collaboration are prioritized, contributing to a more interconnected world. Such interactions open doors for trade, cultural exchange, and mutual understanding.

• APPLY: Farleigh Dickinson University, USA degree scholarship, 2024 (Up to $24,000 every year)

Historical Examples of Successful Civilian Rule

The united states: a beacon of democracy.

The United States stands as a prime example of the success of civilian rule. With a government founded on democratic principles, it has demonstrated how a system based on checks and balances, individual rights, and regular elections can lead to stable governance and widespread prosperity.

South Korea: A Transition to Democracy

South Korea’s transition from military rule to civilian rule marked a turning point in its history. The country’s journey toward democracy led to economic growth, improved human rights, and a vibrant civil society. This transformation underscores the positive impact of civilian governance.

• APPLY: NNPC/SNEPCo University Undergraduate degree Scholarship

India: Diversity and Democracy

India, with its diverse population and complex social fabric, has embraced civilian rule since its independence. Despite challenges, the country’s democratic institutions have provided a platform for various voices to be heard and for peaceful power transitions to occur.

Expert Opinions on Civilian Rule

Renowned political scholars and experts overwhelmingly advocate for civilian rule as the preferred form of governance. Dr. Emily Carter, a political scientist, emphasizes, “Civilian governments are rooted in the aspirations of the people. They ensure inclusivity, progress, and a foundation for sustained development.”

• YABATECH Change of Course Form 2024: How To do It?

FAQs (Civilian Rule is Better than Military Rule )

Q: Can military rule bring stability in times of crisis? A: While military rule might initially restore order, it often comes at the cost of human rights and long-term development. Civilian rule is better equipped to address crises while upholding democratic values.

Q: Are there instances where military rule led to positive outcomes? A: Some argue that military interventions have resulted in short-term stability. However, sustained progress requires civilian governance that prioritizes human rights and accountability.

Q: How does civilian rule prevent abuse of power? A: Civilian governments are structured with checks and balances, ensuring that power is distributed and decisions are made collectively. This reduces the risk of concentrated authority and its potential abuse.

Q: What role does civilian rule play in economic growth? A: Civilian rule fosters an environment conducive to sustainable economic development. Policies can be tailored to address economic challenges, attract investments, and promote innovation.

Q: Can military rule effectively handle diplomatic relations? A: Military regimes often lack the diplomatic finesse required for healthy international relations. Civilian governments engage in diplomatic dialogues, contributing to global stability and cooperation.

Q: Are there risks associated with civilian rule? A: Civilian rule can face challenges such as bureaucracy and political gridlock. However, these challenges can be addressed through effective leadership and democratic processes.

In the ongoing debate Civilian Rule is Better than Military Rule, the advantages of civilian governance stand out as crucial components of a thriving society. With a commitment to democratic principles, human rights, and sustainable development, civilian rule provides a platform for inclusive growth and progress. By examining historical examples, expert opinions, and the merits of this form of governance, it becomes evident that civilian rule is indeed better than military rule in fostering stability, prosperity, and a brighter future.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

♟️ Why we must understand civilian participation in military rule

Researchers of authoritarian politics and civil-military relations have long examined military rule. However, our understanding of civilian participation in military regimes remains limited and requires greater analytical attention, argues Salah Ben Hammou . Amid last year’s coup resurgence, researchers must begin to appreciate the subtle but salient differences among military dictatorships

When soldiers seize political power, our minds tend to conjure up assumptions about military rule. We might imagine officers in fatigues dictating legislation and the outlawing of political participation. In our vision, civilian leaders – civil society members and party leaders – might well be notably absent. But is this really what 'military rule' looks like?

When someone speaks of military rule, we might imagine officers in fatigues dictating legislation. But is that really what 'military rule' looks like?

Hager Ali recently called for greater analytical precision in the study of authoritarian regimes. The study of military regimes – particularly those with a significant civilian presence – is one area of research in need of such nuance. This is especially important in light of the 2021 military coups which toppled governments in Sudan , Mali , Guinea , and Myanmar . But rather than simply lumping all militarised governments together, researchers must do more to appreciate the subtle, but salient, differences.

Delineating (military) dictatorships

It's tempting to assume that all military governments share the same traits and behaviours. But this is not true. Moving beyond the archetype of ‘military rule’, we find great variation among militarised regimes. Researchers acknowledge a few of these distinctions. Most scholarship, for example, distinguishes between cases in which militaries govern through a collegial entity and those where a military officer ‘personalises’ political power.

Examples of the latter include Chile’s General Augusto Pinochet and Uganda’s Idi Amin . The former includes Brazil’s ruling junta 1964–1985 and the Derg in Ethiopia . Studies ( here , here , here , and here ) reveal these differences matter for a country’s foreign policy, political instability, and prospects of democratisation. Yet, despite receiving the most attention from researchers, the difference between collegial and personalist military rule is far from the only relevant distinction.

Scholars have done little to evaluate one key distinction across military regimes: civilian participation

Scholars have done little to evaluate one key distinction across military regimes: civilian participation. Some typologies, such as the Autocratic Breakdown dataset , classify certain governments as having a dominant military and political party. Yet we still lack a nuanced understanding of these types of arrangements. It is unclear, for example, how much relative power each institution wields, or how we might compare such systems to each other.

Further, collegial military rule and military-personalist systems can experience significant involvement by civilian political parties even if they don’t meet the criteria of a ‘dominant’ institution. For example, Sudan’s Colonel Jaafar Nimeiri (in power 1969–1985) is often categorised as a personalist military dictator. Yet Nimeiri's regime initially crafted legislation and policy hand-in-hand with the Communist Party . Likewise, Turkey’s collegial military government (1980–1983) worked alongside a constellation of civilian allies who had previously demanded the armed forces’ intervention.

Bringing civilian participation into the mix

Rather than treating civilian participation as negligible, researchers can use the varieties of this feature to uncover more general trends in military rule.

Soldiers and civilians come to govern together through a variety of avenues. As a result, each avenue comes with its own implications for a country’s civil-military relations. For example, military dictators can form their own civilian political parties. Through these, they can channel mass mobilisation, reduce their reliance on the armed forces, and discredit civilian opposition. Nimeiri’s Sudanese Socialist Union is one such example. The SUU was created in the aftermath of Nimeiri's dispute with his former civilian allies in the Communist Party . In this context, civilians lack significant autonomy from their military allies and merely serve at officers’ behest.

However, civilian parties can also have a great deal of agency. They can build a strong following within the armed forces and use their military partisans to seize power on their behalf. The Ba’ath party’s ascension via a military coup in 1968 Iraq is one such example. Though it began as a military regime, the Ba'athist government saw its officers increasingly lose influence to their civilian allies. And this, of course, paved the way for a civilian – Saddam Hussein – to consolidate political power.

Blurring the lines between 'civilian' and 'military'

In some cases, the outcome is the opposite: officers successfully subjugate their civilian partners. In Sudan, Hassan al-Turabi’s civilian National Islamic Front (NIF) initially dominated Omar al-Bashir’s military dictatorship throughout the 1990s. Indeed, Turabi is often referred to as the power behind the throne . However, al-Bashir and his associates gained full primacy in the regime. By the end of the decade, they had sacked Turabi and his associates. And this type of arrangement is still distinct from cases that emerge from armed anti-colonial resistance, blurring the lines between what it means to be a 'civilian' and a 'soldier'. Algeria's military regime is one such example.

Incorporating different dynamics into our analysis sheds a new light on military regimes, and helps us design our efforts to limit military intervention

These examples are by no means exhaustive of all the potential civil-military arrangements possible under military regimes. However, incorporating the different dynamics sheds light on processes researchers have previously ignored. Instead of erroneously assuming militaries and civilians operate in distinct spaces, we can work towards a nuanced typology that includes the varieties of relationships between civilians and soldiers, their origins, their changing features, and more.

Why civilian participation matters beyond research

Unpacking civilian participation in military regimes extends beyond theoretical concerns.

First, if officers have civilian allies – either willing participants for post-coup governments or instigators of coups themselves – efforts to limit military intervention in politics will be futile . Second, the international community’s recurring demand for a 'civilian' government after a coup overlooks the too-common strategy of handing power to an affiliated civilian party. Observers have raised similar concerns with the international community’s call for a civilian-led government in Sudan, pointing to the recent putschists’ move to form a government composed of civilian allies .

Ultimately, finding the language to describe situations in which civilians don fatigues and govern alongside officers clarifies what military rule can really look like. It also reminds us that civilians, too, have agency.

♟️ No.2 in The Loop's Autocracies with Adjectives series examining the nuanced differences between autocratic regimes around the world

Salah's research focuses on civil-military relations, democratisation, and authoritarian politics in the Middle East and North Africa.

His work has been published in peer-reviewed journals including International Studies Review and Journal of Global Security Studies as well as in popular outlets such as The Washington Post , the Cairo Review , and Political Violence at a Glance .

Personal website

He tweets @poliscisbh

Share Article

Republish article, republish this article.

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Salah Ben Hammou, The Loop May 11, 2022

Republish This Story

Stay in the loop with our biweekly digest

* Provide your email address to subscribe, e.g. [email protected]

* I agree to receive your newsletters and accept the data privacy notice

Your email address is only used to send you The Loop Digest newsletter.

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Recently Published

How real is the threat of the populist far right in the european parliament elections, let young people into politics: they won’t disappoint, 🔮 populist communication – style over substance.

Argumentative Essay On Democracy Is Better Than Military Rule

The debate between democracy and military rule has long been a topic of contention in discussions about governance. In this essay, we will explore the advantages of democracy over military rule, focusing on representation, human rights, the rule of law, economic development, and peaceful transitions of power. Democracy, with its emphasis on citizen participation and protection of individual rights, has proven to be a better path to progress and prosperity for nations worldwide.

Table of Contents

Reasons Why Democracy Is Better Than Military Rule Essay

Representation and participation.

One of the fundamental pillars of democracy is representation and participation. In democratic societies, citizens have the opportunity to elect their leaders, granting them a voice in shaping policies that impact their lives. Elected representatives, who are accountable to the people, advocate for the interests of their constituents and secure various perspectives, are considered in decision-making processes. In contrast, military rule often leaves citizens without a voice, as a select group makes decisions of military leaders without the consent of the governed.

Protection (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); of Human Rights

Democracies are characterized by a commitment to protecting individual rights and freedoms. Constitutional frameworks and independent judiciary systems in democratic nations ensure that basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, assembly, and expression, are upheld. These rights are essential for fostering an environment of open dialogue, debate, and progress. In contrast, military rule may impose restrictions on civil liberties, leading to censorship and oppression, stifling societal growth and development.

Rule of Law

The rule of law is a cornerstone of democratic governance. In a democracy, laws apply to all citizens equally, regardless of their social or political standing. This principle ensures that those in power are held accountable for their actions, promoting transparency and fairness. In military rule, the rule of law may be undermined, leading to arbitrary decision-making and a lack of checks and balances, which can result in abuse of power.

Economic Development

Empirical evidence suggests that democracies tend to experience higher levels of economic development compared to countries under military rule. The stability and predictability of democratic systems create a favorable environment for investment, innovation, and entrepreneurship. Additionally, democratic governments prioritize policies that foster economic growth, social welfare, and education, leading to better economic outcomes and improved living standards for citizens.

Peaceful Transitions of Power

One of the significant advantages of democracy is its ability to facilitate peaceful transitions of power through regular elections. In democratic nations, leaders are elected for a fixed term, and power is peacefully transferred to the winning candidate after each election cycle. This ensures political stability and reduces the risk of violent conflicts that can arise from power struggles in military regimes.

Challenges and Counterarguments

While democracy offers numerous benefits, it is essential to acknowledge its challenges and consider counterarguments. Democracies can face issues such as political polarization, bureaucratic inefficiencies, and the influence of money in politics. Furthermore, some argue that military rule can bring stability and decisive action in times of crisis. However, it is crucial to recognize that military rule often comes at the cost of human rights and undermines the principles of democratic governance.

In conclusion, democracy has proven to be a superior form of governance when compared to military rule. It ensures representation and citizen participation, protects human rights, upholds the rule of law, fosters economic development, and facilitates peaceful transitions of power. While it may face challenges, democracy remains the best path to progress and prosperity for nations worldwide. Embracing democracy’s core principles of inclusion, transparency, and accountability will continue to lead societies toward a brighter and more equitable future.

Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.

Related Posts:

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Is Military Rule Better Than The Civilian Rule Or Vice-Versa?

This article examines whether military rule is better than the civilian rule and vice-versa. It provides the advantages of each system of government and gives room for readers to build on any of the points highlighted.

Democratic Government

Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows people to participate equally—either directly or through elected representatives—in the laws’ proposal, development, and creation. i.e., A democratic government is ruled by civilians, usually elected by the people. Democracy is ruled by the constitution and reign of civil laws, which are reasonably justifiable in a democratic society with civilians exercising all legislative, executive, and judicial powers.

A democratic government contrasts two forms of government where power is either held by one, as in a monarchy, or where power is held by a small number of individuals, as in an oligarchy or aristocracy. Nevertheless, these oppositions, inherited from Greek philosophy, are now ambiguous because contemporary governments have mixed democratic, oligarchic, and monarchic elements. Several variants of democracy exist, but two primary forms concern how the whole body of citizens executes its will: direct democracy and representative democracy.

Read: Is democracy the best form of government?

Military Government

A military government is ruled by the armed forces, who do not come to power through election, but by force of arms. A military regime is a process, procedure, or system with expertise, adapted and rooted in war and combat. It is a system rooted in martial law and forces. It is also a system that demands obedience always and, in its purest essence, makes no room for debate and opposition.

Some of the features of military rule include Suspension of the constitution, absence of an election, use of decrees and edicts, lack of respect for fundamental human rights, no checks and balances, centralized form of government, no periodic election, etc.

Read: Causes and remedies to indiscipline in schools

Which is better?

Below are the advantages of civilian rule and military rule. Look at the advantages of the two and compare them to be sure which is better. Each of them has its cons and that must be considered too. This will help you give the essential points to defend the side you want to take.

Civilian Rule

• There are ways to resolve different views and conflicts peacefully.
• It is a government by the people and for the people
• Respect for human dignity.
• The freedom to act, speak, and think freely (as long as it does not stop others from doing the same).
• Equality before the law.
• Safe and secure community.
• It is a system of government that is efficient, transparent, responsive, and accountable to citizens.
• Ability to hold elected representatives accountable.
• Opposition and criticism are tolerated.

Military Rule

• The military has protocol and structure.
• Protection of life and property is ensured in a military regime.
• Decision-making is faster in military regimes than in civilian.
• It instills discipline and brings about order and corporate living among people in society.
• Control of corruption
• It is cost-effective. Since the election is not conducted, billions spent on this process are avoided.
• There is respect for authority
• Criminal activities are minimal. Martial law can quickly illuminate all criminals.
• Military naturally commands respect and fear which is enough to make everyone do what is right while the nation develops with people marginalizing one another.

Related posts:

• Nigerian Military School JS1 Application Form 2024/2025
• Nigerian Military School (NMS) Admission List 2023/2024
• Nigerian Military School (NMS) Zaria School Fees 2023/2024
• Why you should not overprotect your child as a parent
• How to gain admission into Obafemi Awolowo University

Bolarinwa Olajire

Leave a reply.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Civilian Rule vs. Military Rule Debate

Engage in a compelling debate against the motion "military rule is better than civilian rule," showcasing your personalized arguments and evidence.

Try this template and 100s more with a free WNR.AI account

AI templates turn a simple form into a sophisticated prompt, helping you get high quality, dependable results from AI. They are saveable, shareable, and reusable.

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

• Globally, Broad Support for Representative and Direct Democracy
• 2. Democracy widely supported, little backing for rule by strong leader or military

Table of Contents

• 1. Many unhappy with current political system
• Acknowledgments
• Methodology
• Appendix: Political categorization

Governance can take many forms: by elected representatives, through direct votes by citizens, by a strong leader, the military or those with particular expertise. Some form of democracy is the public’s preference.

[a representative democracy]

A global median of 78% back government by elected representatives. But the intensity of this support varies significantly between nations. Roughly six-in-ten Ghanaians (62%), 54% of Swedes and 53% of Senegalese and Tanzanians hold the view that representative democracy is very good. Just 8% of Brazilians and 9% of Mexicans agree. The only countries where there is significantly strong opposition to representative democracy are Colombia (24% say it is very bad) and Tunisia (23% very bad).

In many countries, skepticism of representative democracy is tied to negative views about economic conditions. In 19 countries, people who say their national economies are in bad shape are less likely to believe representative democracy is good for the country.

In 23 nations, the belief that representative democracy is good is less common among people who think life is worse today than it was 50 years ago. In Spain, for example, just 63% of those who believe life is worse than before consider representative democracy a good thing for their country, compared with 80% who support representative democracy among those who say life is better than it was a half century ago.

Similarly, pessimism about the next generation is related to negative views about representative democracy. In roughly half the nations surveyed those who think today’s children will be worse off financially than their parents are less likely than others to say representative democracy is a good form of government. Among Mexicans who believe the next generation will be worse off, only 52% say representative democracy is good for the country. Backing for government by elected representatives is at 72% among those who say children will be better off than their parents.

Attitudes toward representative democracy are also associated with opinions about diversity. In more than a third of the nations surveyed those who think that having people of many different backgrounds – such as different ethnic groups, religions and races – makes their country a worse place to live are less likely than others to support government by elected representatives. In South Africa, a country with a troubled history of racial oppression and conflict, 73% of those who embrace diversity describe representative democracy as a good thing for their country; just 54% agree among those who say diversity makes South Africa a worse place to live.

Many publics want a direct say

Direct democracy, a governing system where citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on major national issues, is supported by roughly two-thirds of the public around the world, with little difference in views between regions.

The strongest support for governing through referenda is found in Turkey (84%), where 53% of the public say it would be very good to have citizens vote on major national issues. Lebanon (83%) and Kenya (80%) also show broad support for direct democracy.

There is also strong backing for such governance in Japan (65%) even though the country has not had a referendum in the post-World War II era.

In the U.S., Germany and the Netherlands, people with a high school education or less are more likely than those with more than a high school education to support direct democracy. Such differences are small in the U.S. (6 percentage points) and Germany (8 points) but there is a 17-point differential in the Netherlands (62% of those with less educational attainment back direct democracy, but only 45% of those with more education agree).

In six of seven Latin American nations surveyed, those with a secondary school education or above are more supportive of direct democracy than those with less than a high school education. This educational divide is 16 points in Chile and 14 points in Argentina and Colombia. In each of these countries, those with less education are less likely to hold an opinion of direct democracy.

In Latin America, there is also a generation gap in views of direct democracy. In Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela, those ages 18 to 29 are more supportive than those ages 50 and older of having citizens, not elected officials, vote directly on issues of major national importance.

Notably, in the U.S. it is people ages 30 to 49 who are most likely (73%) to back referenda.

In other countries there are sharp divisions along religious or ethnic lines. In Israel it is Arabs (83%) more than Jews (54%) who favor direct democracy, and in Nigeria it is Muslims (70%) more than Christians (55%).

Supporters of some populist parties in Europe are particularly enthusiastic about direct democracy. In Spain, 88% of those who hold a favorable view of Podemos say citizens voting on national issues would be good for the country. In Germany, 84% of AfD backers agree, as do 77% of PVV supporters in the Netherlands.

Support for direct democracy can also be seen in other recent Pew Research Center findings in Europe. In the wake of the United Kingdom’s decision to leave the European Union, a median of just 18% in nine continental EU member states say they want their country to exit the EU. But 53% support holding a national vote on their own country’s EU membership.

And such support is particularly strong among backers of Euroskeptic populist parties, many of whom have promised their supporters a referendum on EU membership. (For more on European’s attitudes about staying in the EU, see Post-Brexit, Europeans More Favorable Toward EU .)

And in six of the nine continental European nations surveyed, strong majorities of those who believe that direct democracy is a very good form of governance support their own EU membership referendum.

Technocracy has its champions

The value of expert opinion has been questioned in the eyes of the public in recent years. But when asked whether a governing system in which experts, not elected officials, make decisions would be a good or bad approach, publics around the world are divided: 49% say that would be a good idea, 46% think it would be a bad thing.

Europeans (a median of 43%) and Americans (40%) are the least supportive. But among Europeans, roughly two-thirds of Hungarians (68%) say leaving decision-making to experts would be a good way to govern.

Asian-Pacific publics generally back rule by experts, particularly people in Vietnam (67%), India (65%) and the Philippines (62%). Only Australians are notably wary: 57% say it would be a bad way to govern, and only 41% support governance by experts.

More than half of Africans surveyed also say governing by experts would be a good thing for their country. Nigerians (65%) are especially supportive. And it is Nigerian Muslims more than Christians who say this.

Young people in a number of advanced economies are particularly attracted to technocracy. In the U.S. the age gap is 10 percentage points – 46% of those ages 18 to 29 but only 36% of those ages 50 and older say it would be good if experts, not elected officials, made decisions. The young-old differential is even greater in Australia (19 points), Japan (18 points), the UK (14 points), Sweden (13 points) and Canada (13 points).

Some support for rule by strong leader

Rule by a strong leader is generally unpopular, though minorities of a substantial size back it. A global median of 26% say a system in which a strong leader can make decisions without interference from parliament or the courts would be a good way of governing. Roughly seven-in-ten (71%) say it would be a bad type of governance.

Opposition is particularly widespread in Europe (a median of 86% oppose rule by a strong leader), with strong opposition in Germany (93%), Sweden (90%) and the Netherlands (89%).

But autocracy is not universally opposed. Roughly four-in-ten Italians (43%) who have a favorable view of Forza Italia, the political party founded by former Italian Prime Minister Silvio Berlusconi, and a similar share of the British (42%) who favor UKIP say a strong leader making decisions would be good for their country. Nearly half of Russians (48%) back governance by a strong leader.

In Asia, 55% of Indians, 52% of Indonesians and 50% of Filipinos favor autocracy. Such support is particularly intense in India, where 27% very strongly back a strong leader.

Public views of rule by a strong leader are relevant in countries that have experienced degrees of authoritarianism in recent years. Roughly eight-in-ten Venezuelans (81%) and 71% of Hungarians oppose a strong leader who makes decisions without interference of parliament or the courts.

Rule by a strong leader also appeals to older members of the public in some countries. More than a quarter of Hungarians (29%) and South Koreans (34%) ages 50 and older favor governance by a strong leader.

In advanced economies there is little overall backing for autocracy. But, where such support does exist, it is often people with a secondary education or below who are more likely than those with more education to favor autocratic rule. This educational divide is particularly wide in the UK (19 percentage points), the U.S. (15 points), Poland and South Korea (both 13 points).

In a number of nations there is a significant division of opinion about strong leaders based on ideology. Those who place themselves on the right of the ideological spectrum are more likely than those who place themselves on the left to say a strong leader making decisions would be a good way of governing. The ideological gap is 20 percentage points in South Korea and Australia and 16 points in Italy and the UK. Notably, in Venezuela, which has been ruled by populist, left-wing strongmen, those on the left are more supportive of autocratic rule than those on the right.

Significant minorities support military rule

There is minority support for a governing system in which the military rules the country: a median of 24% in the 38 nations surveyed. At least four-in-ten Africans (46%) and Asians (41%) see value in a government run by the generals and admirals.

The strongest backing is in Vietnam (70%), where the army has long played a pivotal role in governance in close collaboration with the Communist Party, especially in the 1960s and 70s during the war with the United States. Some of this may be nostalgia for the past: By two-to-one (46% to 23%) Vietnamese ages 50 and older are more likely than those ages 18 to 29 to say military rule would be very good for their country.

Notably, roughly half of both Indians (53%) and South Africans (52%), who live in nations that often hold themselves up as democratic exemplars for their regions, say military rule would be a good thing for their countries. But in these societies, older people (those ages 50 and older) are the least supportive of the army running the country, and they are the ones who either personally experienced the struggle to establish democratic rule or are the immediate descendants of those democratic pioneers. In South Africa, blacks (55%) more than whites (38%) also favor the military making governance decisions.

Only one-in-ten Europeans back military rule. But some on the populist right of the political spectrum voice such support. Nearly a third of those who hold a favorable view of the National Front in France (31%) say a governing system in which the military rules the country would be a good thing, as do nearly a quarter of those who favor UKIP in the United Kingdom (23%).

Support for a governing system in which the military rules the country enjoys backing among people with less education in at least half the countries surveyed, with some of the strongest support among those with less than a secondary education in Africa and Latin America.

More than half of Peruvians with less than a high school education (55%) prefer military rule. Only about a third (32%) of more educated Peruvians agree.

Particularly strong backing for military rule also exists among the less educated in Vietnam (76%), Nigeria (57%), Kenya (49%) and the Philippines (47%).

Notably, one-in-five of those ages 50 and older in the U.S. support military rule, as do roughly one-in-four Japanese (24%) ages 18 to 29.

Ideology also plays a role in public views of military rule. But it can cut both ways. In some countries, people on the right of the political spectrum are significantly more supportive of military governance than those on the left, especially in Chile. In Hungary and Venezuela, on the other hand, it is more likely to be individuals on the left who see value in military rule.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter

Fresh data delivery Saturday mornings

Sign up for The Briefing

Weekly updates on the world of news & information

• Authoritarianism
• Trust in Government
• Trust, Facts & Democracy

Support for democracy is strong in Hong Kong and Taiwan

Who likes authoritarianism, and how do they want to change their government, many across the globe are dissatisfied with how democracy is working, facts on foreign students in the u.s., how countries around the world view democracy, military rule and other political systems, most popular, report materials.

• Explore global opinions on political systems by country
• Spring 2017 Survey Data

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

© 2024 Pew Research Center

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Differences in Military and Civilian rule in Nigerian Politics by Ogabo Adah

Related Papers

Springer Publications

Jadesola Babatola Ph.D

ctorate of Southern Nigeria in 1914. As a model of world diplomacy through the quest for new territories in that era, the need to enhance the imperialistic goals of Western powers, with the naming of new spheres of interest on the world map, made major European powers invade and colonize Africa, Asia, and to dominate the world scene all over. The unsettling conflict of interest in Europe, however, altered the balance of power in Europe owing to a series of events resulting in Germany’s retaliation to deal with its adversaries, in an avoidable World War I and a more damaging World War II which ended with birth of United Nations and aspirations of new colonies for independence. The world wars and gradual exposure of Africans to Western education led many African leaders to clamor for political independence and sovereignty with the return to autonomous rule of their people and governing of their affairs in a preferred way. In setting the pace for sovereign states on African soil, the proclamation of national independence of most colonies ended with neo-colonialism, the continuous exploitation of Africa by foreign powers, and their proxies. As an independent nation-state, Nigeria has been bewildered by issues of political stability shrouded in controversies of struggle for power and continuous agitations arising from defects of lack of strong democratic leadership and representative government, demand for changes in constitutional provisions, and the need to properly manage the challenges of nation-building. This study of Nigeria as a former British colony is an attempt to review political events and circumstances leading to underlying factors in the creation of Nigerian States concerning its existence in the pre-colonial era and the continued realities in her relationship and quest for national cohesion, unity and the co-existence of the citizens of the Nigerian State. Efforts of Nigerian leaders to also determine the focus and gains of true federalism in Nigeria through the constitutional developments and emergence of political leadership suffices. The study, no doubt, attempts a review of the concept of constitutionalism and republicanism, the British colonial rule, constitutional development and negotiations for national independence, and the emerging political culture of Nigeria as a sovereign state transforming into a Republic for the guarantee of a stable political system, free of colonial interest and building political governance around democratic aspirations of its diverse people and cultures.

Evelyn Onwaniban

MUHAMMED ADAMU YAMANGA

Historical Research Letter

ajibola abdulrahman

Mohammed I S

Nigeria which occupies a total area of 923, 768 sq km with a current population of about 177m and about 394 distinct groups and languages began the journey into its first century and nationhood with the amalgamation of Northern and Southern areas (protectorates) of the Niger by Sir Frederick Lord Lugard, the first British Governor General under the Majesty’s Government and thus became a single/united political entity on January 1st, 1914 (exactly one hundred years ago). Nigeria was hitherto the amalgamation composed of different ethnic nationalities, kingdoms, empires, caliphate as well as some independent and other republican states and acephalous societies that were to some extent related with one another and also diverse on cultural, political and economic grounds. The Eastern and Western regions got self government in 1957 and the Northern region later in March, 1959. Nigeria got its independence on October 1st, 1960 from Britain. From independence, Nigeria went through a civilian democratic regime of the first republic, military rule, civil-war, civilian then military and currently civilian democratic rule. The post independence years of Nigeria’s political history are divided into 28 years of military and 26 years of civilian democratic rule. Throughout the country’s history, the amalgamated areas have not (with the exception of Biafara) formally broken away although the political history has been characterised by calls and agitations for national conferences by the ethnic nationalities and or national questions. This paper puts into perspective the history, journey and challenges in Nigeria’s first centenary. The paper used secondary source of data. Although the colonial masters institutionalised federal and parliamentary systems, the first military coup in January, 1966 eroded the parliamentary system and later adopted presidential system but the federal system has since 1954 been in operation to share and exercise constitutional powers among the various components of the federation and accommodate heterogeneities. The country also went through several constitutional conferences, reviews and changes. The issues of democracy, resources control and allocation, the northsouth divide, socio-economic and security challenges have also characterized the polity. Despite all the socio-economic, political and cultural diversities and impending challenges(recurring political, socioeconomic and ethno-religious instabilities, corruption in both public and private sectors, poor or absence of good governance, poor and or inefficient public sector and services, inter/intra governmental conflicts et cetera) however, Nigeria is forging ahead and overcoming many very trying times and experience.

Chudi Chidume Ph.D

The military is a vital institution in the modern State system as the major factor that determines the capability and capacity of the State’s national power to make policies within the domestic and the international circles for the overall nation building and political development of States. The Nigeria military as a product of colonialism became a veritable institution imbued with the constitutional mandate to protect the territorial integrity of the country and as well maintain robust civil-military relations necessary for nation building in the post independent Nigeria. This expectation was greeted with much char grin and fiasco, when ethnicity which was implanted by the colonial imperialism as a Pandora box imploded the First Republic in the post independent Nigeria. When the political impasse and imbroglio became nauseating and ad nauseam attesting to the inability of the civil authority to address the nation building challenges confronting Nigeria in the incipient stage of her political independence; it became imperative and behoves on the prestigious military institution to rise to these nation building challenges forthwith. It was on the basis of this background and ambience that the military revolution of 15th January 1966 was staged to save the nation from drifting into political doldrums and abyss. This scenario offered the military the opportunity to impact and contribute to nation building and political development in Nigeria. The paper examines and analyses how far the military has contributed in addressing nation building challenges that have impacted in the overall political development of Nigeria. The paper also looks at how the military institution has assisted the civil authority in addressing nation building challenges in the Fourth Republic.

Federal Governance

Eyene Okpanachi

In Nigeria, before the advent of British colonial rule, traditional political institutions were operating in the indigenous societies with their well-structured constitutional framework. For instance, in the Northern part of Nigeria largely dominated by the Hausa/Fulani, there were very powerful Kingdoms established as theocratic states under the headship of Emirs who served as both the spiritual and temporal leaders. In the same vein, the Yoruba political system was organized into large and subordinate chiefdoms ruled by Kings (Obas) and Chiefs (Baales or Olojas) based on customary practices and local traditions linked to their motherland – Ile-Ife. The Igbo society was another socially coercive group operating a fragmented political system with loose political leadership and socio-political institutions based on democratic principles and cultural antecedents in decision-making. The British colonial enterprise however helped to accomplish the goals of the Berlin Conference of reducing and eliminating European conflicts on African soils while providing leverage for the imperialistic quest of European States to expand. The scramble for and partition of Africa and the British conquering of Nigerian territories had been laid through the exploration of the vast territories by early European traders, missionaries, and explorers, whose missions were unknown until Africa was surrounded, bombarded, and invaded on all sides. The imperialistic goals that fueled the British invasion and domination of Nigeria therefore influenced the mode of constitutionalism adopted in the colonized Nigeria owing to the mode of political control and governing mechanism introduced in the colonial era via the direct and indirect rule system.

DEMAIN BEREBOFIGHA SUNDAY

Mubarak Ajah Obiahu

Mubarak A J A H Obiahu

Nigeria was founded in the year 1963 Although Nigeria gained independence from the United Kingdom on October 1st, 1960, the nation retained the British monarch. Nigeria was named by Flora Louise Shaw. The name Nigeria was derived from the Niger River running through the country. This name was coined in the late 19th century. Flora Shaw was born on 19th December 1852 – 25th January 1929 and she was a British journalist and writer. Flora Shaw later married Lord Lugard, a British colonial administrator.

RELATED PAPERS

Iacob Vasile

Giovanny Diaz

Tamar Pataraia

Journal of Aquaculture and Marine Biology

Audrey Amorim Corrêa

Revista Peruana de Ginecología y Obstetricia

Jose Pacheco Romero

Applied Surface Science

De-Quan Yang

Global Journal of Geological Sciences

GEORGE OZULU

Devon Williams

AIP Conference Proceedings

Rod Russell

IEEE Transactions on Magnetics

Jacek Starzynski

Špela Černjavič

steven shnider

VISIKES: Jurnal Kesehatan Masyarakat

Arif Kurniadi

Physical Review E

yossi cohen

BMC Microbiology

Gaurav Kumar

Planetary and Space Science

Andreas Johnsson

Archives of current research international

Carlo Aleci, MD, Ph.D

Circulation

Dr. Harold L Kennedy

BMC Health Services Research

jorge cuadros

Walter Snyder

Nikola Bjelić

Sayıştay dergisi

arife coşkun

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

• Username Password Remember me Sign in New here ? Join Us

• English Language
• 2001 WAEC English La...

2001 WAEC English Language Theory You are a speaker in a debate on the topic “Civilian rule is better than...

You are a speaker in a debate on the topic “Civilian rule is better than military." Write your contribution for or against the motion. 

Explanation

Good morning Mr. Chairman, panel of Judges, accurate time-keeper, co-debaters, ladies and gentlemen. I am here to support the motion which says: "Civilian rule is better than military rule."        Firstly, I would like to take the pains to enlighten some of the younger ones here about what civilian rule and military rule are actually all about. Civilian rule can be likened to a democratic rule. Democracy, in the opinion of the layman, is government for the people, of the people and by the people. From the definition, it can be noted that civilian rulers are actually chosen by the people and they work for the benefit of the people who choose them.        On the other hand, military rule can be likened to an autocratic rule where the people are instructed to go and comes without any argument from anyone. It is like a do or die affair. Let me now get down to the motion.        First and foremost, in every democratic dispensation, there is freedom to vote and be voted for, which is not present in the military rule. The civilians only rule when they have been elected by the people. They do not impose themselves on anyone. Meanwhile, the people have no say when the military is ruling. Military rule is imposed on the people and military heads of state rule without the consent of the people. Because military men have guns, the people can not protest, they just have to accept them. Moreover, when civilians rule, the people enjoy freedom of speech and of the press. An indigene can criticise a civilian leader either in the newspaper or on television without any fear of molestation. Nowadays, it is very common to see people criticising or admonishing the civilian president of Nigeria on the television. Everybody is believed to be equal under a civilian dispensation. However, in military rule, no one has the guts to talk against a ruler even in the enclosure of his room because walls are believed to have ears.        Furthermore, in military rule, some innocent citizens, being victims of circumstances, are shot down accidentally. This often occurs in a military dispensation. There is little respect or regard for human lives and the military can be likened to armed robbers because instead of using their guns for security purposes, they maim innocent lives. However, in civilian rule, the intimidating guns are not present and this actually brings a sense of security to the citizens.        Lastly, civilian rulers execute good and popular projects which are aimed at ameliorating the suffering of the people they rule. They know that the people who vote them into power would judge them by their performance. Therefore, they execute good projects and provide infrastructural facilities that could speak for them when they are called to render account of their stewardship in governance. On the contrary, military rulers are not guided by the wishes and demands of the people they rule when it comes to project execution. This is because they are not accountable to the people.        I believe that I have been able to convince you that civilian rule is better than military rule. I thank you for your patience. 

Contributions ({{ comment_count }})

Please wait..., modal title, {{ feedback_modal_data.title }}, quick questions.

Post your Contribution

Please don't post or ask to join a "Group" or "Whatsapp Group" as a comment. It will be deleted. To join or start a group, please click here

{{ quote.posted_by.display_name }}

Why civilian government is better than military in Nigeria?

Civilian government is better than military rule in Nigeria because it promotes democracy, respect for human rights, and the rule of law, leading to greater stability and economic prosperity for the country.

What are the key differences between civilian and military rule in Nigeria?

Civilian government is run by elected officials and is based on the principles of democracy, while military rule is characterized by the control of the government by the armed forces.

How does civilian government promote democracy in Nigeria?

Civilian government allows for free and fair elections, gives citizens the right to participate in politics, and fosters a system of checks and balances.

What role does respect for human rights play in civilian government?

Civilian government is based on the respect for human rights, including freedom of speech, assembly, and religion, which are essential for a thriving society.

How does civilian government contribute to the rule of law?

Civilian government upholds the rule of law by ensuring that all individuals, including government officials, are subject to the same laws and justice system.

What are the economic benefits of civilian government in Nigeria?

Under civilian government, Nigeria can attract more foreign investment, develop strong institutions, and implement economic policies that promote growth and development.

Can civilian government help to reduce corruption in Nigeria?

Yes, civilian government can foster transparency, accountability, and anti-corruption measures to combat corrupt practices.

What are the drawbacks of military rule in Nigeria?

Military rule often leads to restrictions on civil liberties, political repression, and a lack of accountability, which can hinder the country’s progress.

How does military rule impact foreign relations for Nigeria?

Military rule can strain diplomatic relations with other countries and affect Nigeria’s international standing and credibility.

What are the common concerns with military intervention in Nigerian politics?

Military interventions in Nigerian politics often lead to instability, human rights abuses, and a lack of trust in the government.

How does civilian government contribute to national unity in Nigeria?

A civilian government can work towards inclusivity, representation, and dialogue among diverse ethnic and religious groups in Nigeria, fostering national unity.

What role does the military play in a civilian government?

The military in a civilian government serves to protect the country’s borders, contribute to peacekeeping efforts, and assist in disaster relief.

How does civilian government impact the development of democratic institutions in Nigeria?

Civilian government can strengthen democratic institutions such as the legislature, judiciary, and civil society organizations, promoting good governance.

What are the challenges of transitioning from military to civilian rule in Nigeria?

Challenges include consolidating democratic gains, addressing political fragmentation, and reforming military institutions to be subordinate to civilian authority.

How does civilian government address the needs of the Nigerian people?

Civilian government can implement social and economic policies that address poverty, unemployment, healthcare, and education, prioritizing the well-being of its citizens.

What is the role of the citizenry in upholding a civilian government?

Citizens play a crucial role in holding their elected officials accountable, participating in civic engagement, and defending democratic values to ensure the success of civilian government in Nigeria.

Related posts:

• Is military housing free?
• Is it illegal to lie about being in the military?
• Is military income taxed?
• Is it illegal to make a copy of a military ID?
• Is military press bad for shoulders?
• Is it illegal to marry for military benefits?

About Robert Carlson

Robert has over 15 years in Law Enforcement, with the past eight years as a senior firearms instructor for the largest police department in the South Eastern United States. Specializing in Active Shooters, Counter-Ambush, Low-light, and Patrol Rifles, he has trained thousands of Law Enforcement Officers in firearms. A U.S Air Force combat veteran with over 25 years of service specialized in small arms and tactics training. He is the owner of Brave Defender Training Group LLC, providing advanced firearms and tactical training.

Leave a Comment Cancel reply

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

Still not convinced? Check out the best features of our service:

Write my essay for me frequently asked questions.

The essay writers who will write an essay for me have been in this domain for years and know the consequences that you will face if the draft is found to have plagiarism. Thus, they take notes and then put the information in their own words for the draft. To be double sure about this entire thing, your final draft is being analyzed through anti-plagiarism software, Turnitin. If any sign of plagiarism is detected, immediately the changes will be made. You can get the Turnitin report from the writer on request along with the final deliverable.

Emery Evans

Why do I have to pay upfront for you to write my essay?

What if I can’t write my essay?

Research papers can be complex, so best to give our essay writing service a bit more time on this one. Luckily, a longer paper means you get a bigger discount!

Customer Reviews

• Our Listings
• Our Rentals
• Testimonials
• Tenant Portal