The Logic of Civil-Military Relations

El Mostrador, March 25, 2020

If we understand the social contract that exists between society and its Armed Forces, everything will be fine. The problem arises when we do not understand the logic of the relationship or, understanding it, we seek to modify it in order to involve them in issues that are not defined in the Constitution or to seek their support for a particular political position, degrading them so that they cannot perform the tasks we have assigned to them, or we make unfounded accusations that require the commanders to defend themselves or clarify something that does not align with reality, incorrectly accusing them of deliberating and demanding the resignations of those who have rightly exercised their right to defense.

In times when the Armed Forces are deployed in pandemic mode under the Constitutional State of Exception due to Catastrophe, or when they are being sought to be involved in aspects of Internal Security in the Southern Macrozone or are already involved, as is the case with the logistical and technological support they provide to the police at the northern border in anti-narcotics operations or in controlling illegal immigration through border crossings with Bolivia, it is important to understand the logic of the civil-military relationship, how to safeguard it, so that it does not become tense and, eventually, break with the consequences that this implies for the normal and democratic development of society.

Liberal democratic societies delegate to their Armed Forces and police the monopoly on the use of force, so that they may exercise it on behalf of the State when required. This constitutional delegation is accompanied by the demand for subordination to the Executive Power (incorrectly referred to as civil power) and additionally, they are required not to participate in politics, which in the case of Chile is defined as not being deliberative.

The latter is a somewhat imprecise term open to misinterpretation, as the act of deliberating is performed by the deliberator, who is the one deliberating, and deliberating is better understood when looking at its synonyms. These include meditating, thinking, reflecting, analyzing, considering, examining, treating, debating, discussing, disputing, resolving, deciding, determining, agreeing, ruling, and so on, leading us to conclude that deliberating does not necessarily equate to performing a political act. Why dwell so long on this point? For the simple reason that a significant part of the problems in civil-military relations arise when generals and admirals rightly express opinions on matters, without this implying that they are supporting a particular political faction or deciding in favor of a highly combustible or contingent situation.

Also, due to the obedience and non-involvement in politics, Western societies protect them from being involved in issues that are not their own or not established in the Constitution and seek for them to focus on their primary functions of defending the territory, sovereignty, and national interest. Additionally—and apart from the normal requirement that they be well-managed, ethical, and professional—they recognize certain characteristics of the military profession through remuneration and pension systems that address the unique aspects of their service, which include, among other things, being willing to give their lives for their country (in the case of Chile), relocations, and family demands that civilians do not face, as well as the non-payment of overtime that other activities do have.

If we safeguard what is indicated in the previous paragraphs and understand the social contract that exists between society and its Armed Forces, everything will be fine. The problem arises when we do not understand the logic of the relationship or, understanding it, we seek to modify it in order to involve them in issues that are not defined in the Constitution or to seek their support for a particular political position, or, ultimately, we make unfounded accusations that require the commanders to defend themselves or clarify something that does not align with reality and truth, incorrectly accusing them of deliberating and demanding the resignations of those who have rightly exercised their right to defense.

In conclusion, aside from understanding the logic of the relationship and the social contract that exists between both parties, it is advisable not to fall into the temptation of gradually moving the boundaries (as in Decree 265) and for both sides to always think carefully about what they will say in public, thus avoiding generating more tensions than those we already experience and will experience for some time, as we do not want to move from words to actions, as often happens among human beings in heated or crisis situations.

Richard Kouyoumdjian
Vice President, AthenaLab