Military dictatorship

[6] The military is well-equipped to seek and maintain political power, as it is often more modernized than other institutions in a given country, with access to resources and training not available to civil leaders.

When insurgents form a dictatorship, they are not constrained by formal military procedures, but their lack of organization can increase the likelihood of opposing factions developing within the group.

[10] Several justifications can be offered by military leadership for seizing power, including improper behavior of the civilian government, a threat of communist takeover, or disorder in politics.

[11] These justifications are often given for any formation of military rule, even if the personal motivations of the officers involve greed, ambition, factionalism, or ethnic conflict.

[13] Military rulers will often justify their intervention as a way to protect the people from political repression or as a response to economic failure.

[16] When these opponents are neighboring countries that present territorial threats, however, it can weaken democracy and incentivize the creation of a stronger military.

[17] All of these factors are aggravated in countries with significant natural resources, as these provide an additional financial incentive for the military to seize power.

[27] Military dictatorships struggle to build civilian bases of support through mass political participation or a partisan apparatus, which limits the ability for a regime to establish a stable long-term government.

[23] The legitimacy of a military dictatorship is often contingent on the promise to step down once conditions have been established for a civilian government, and resistance can form against a regime that holds power beyond this point.

[38] A prosperous military dictatorship will see increasing calls to restore civilian government as the economy improves.

[39] Military dictatorships are most commonly dissolved following a poor performance in the opinion of elites, causing them to revoke their support for the regime.

This commonly takes place when the dictatorship acts to harm the foreign government or engages in widespread human rights abuses.

The centralization of power and the restriction of liberties such as freedom of speech and due process prevent democratic institutions from developing.

[60] Civilians with expertise in a given area might be tasked with making political decisions, but this power can be revoked at any time by the military leadership.

[70] These dictatorships become increasingly personalist as the ruler consolidates power and subjugates rivals, eventually culminating in cults of personality.

[71] Other military officers may hold positions in the government, but they have no power to restrain the dictator or influence policy decisions.

Achieving direct control over the military also allows the dictator to appoint loyalists to important positions while excluding competitors.

[73] Similar to absolute monarchies, military dictatorships traditionally adhere to a classical conception of authoritarianism that rejects partisan politics and allows other institutions, such as churches, to exist and hold power.

The extent that military riches will increase depends on whether officers prioritize self-enrichment or preserving political power.

[90] Military dictators are also more skeptical of the idea that diplomacy can maintain peace and security, and they often see foreign nations as threats, even if they are nominally allies.

[111][112] This government was formed by Cromwell while he was a general in 1649,[113] and his rule was effectively maintained by the military until the Humble Petition and Advice recognized him as a constitutional ruler in 1657.

[124] This period in Japanese history saw power struggles between civilian and military officials, culminating in the appointment of General Hideki Tojo as prime minister in 1941.

[138] African military dictators often seized power citing a failure of civilian government, banning all political activity and suspending the constitution.

Several of the surviving military dictatorships in Africa also enacted measures to increase citizen participation in local governance.

The intra-Ba'athist power struggle persisted until the 1970 coup, when General Hafez al-Assad gained undisputed control of the Syrian military and the Arab Socialist Ba'ath party.

[152] The military organized the Democratic Republican Party to hold political power after nominally returning to civilian government in 1963.

[157] Neighboring Thailand has seen a similar trend, where the military has ruled directly or indirectly for most years since 1932, with only four civilian governments being formed between 1932 and 2011.

The Greek junta ruled until 1974, at which point a political crisis prompted by the Cyprus problem convinced the military to return power to the previous civilian government.

[171] Some reformist military dictatorships also existed at this time, maintaining popular support by appealing to labor groups and the working class.

[172] Foreign pressure, particularly from the Carter administration in the United States, prompted the end of several military dictatorships in the region in the late 1970s.