Militaries play dramatically different roles in different autocracies. At one extreme, the military remains the supreme political actor for generations. At the other extreme, militaries long remain subordinate to authoritarian leaders. We argue that the roots of this variation—from military supremacy to subordination—lie in military origins. Where authoritarian mass parties created militaries from scratch, the armed forces have generally remained subservient. Where militaries emerged separately from authoritarian parties, they enjoyed the autonomy necessary to achieve and maintain military supremacy. The core lesson is simple: Unless an autocratic regime created the military, it will struggle to control the military.
About the Authors
Dan Slater
Dan Slater is the James Orin Murfin Professor of Political Science and Director of the Center for Emerging Democracies at the University of Michigan.
Lucan Way is Distinguished Professor of Democracy at the University of Toronto. Collaborations with Steven Levitsky include “The Rise of Competitive Authoritarianism” (2002) and “The New Competitive Authoritarianism” (2020), both published in the Journal of Democracy, and Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes after the Cold War (2010).
Across the Arab world, militaries have played a key role in determining whether revolts against dictatorship succeed or fail. What factors determine how and why “the guys with guns” line…
Egypt’s general-turned-president has spent lavishly, cemented the military’s political and economic control, and, afraid of suffering Mubarak’s fate, become increasingly repressive. But with crushing inflation and everyday people suffering, is…
A key factor in determining the success or failure of revolutions is how the national armed forces react. What are the keys to making accurate predictions about what the soldiers…
