Political Systems and the Role of the Military.

First, it fails to account for the variance in outcomes of political crises. There are at least three types of outcomes: military take-over, military support for one of the contending civilian groups, or military neutrality such that the crisis is resolved through the political processes. All three of these outcomes have occurred in the new nations. This suggests that more specific hypotheses are needed to differentiate the conditions which lead to different outcomes. Second, the range of variance encompasses the outcomes of political crises in the "developed" as well as the "underdeveloped" states, although the political institutions and processes are assumed to be well-established in the former. The commonality in the variance indicates that the developed-underdeveloped dichotomy is inadequate as an explanatory principle? Military involvement in polities is as common to the old and developed states as to the new and underdeveloped states. It will be useful, therefore, to look beyond this simple dichotomy to a more generic set of differences. In analysing the role of the military in the new states, many writers focus on the relationship between military and civilian authorities (see e.g., Lieuwen, 1964). These studies emphasize the military as a socializing agent and as a base of political support for the current regime. To explain the emergence of the military from a neutral to an interventionist political force, the argument has been that the military becomes politicized under conditions of civilian political failure (Rudolph and Rudolph, 1964; Finer, 1962:63; Pye, 1962b:231-251; Shils, 1962:8-9; Depuy, 1961). The apparent assumption of this argument is that political roles and processes are not firmly institutionalized in these states. Failure to achieve stated national goals creates doubt as to the legitimacy of the existing political system. As a result, the political functions are assumed by an organization that is outside the political system and therefore not discredited by its failures, rather than by political opponents. While this argument finds illustrative support in cases such as Pakistan and Burma, it has two basic weaknesses. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]