Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ရဲ႕ ႏုိင္ငံေရး အခန္းက႑မွာ ေခါင္းေဆာင္ပိုင္း leadership role က ပါမွာ

ၿမန္မာလိုေရးတာ သိပ္ မသိသာလွဘူး အဂၤလိပ္လို ေရးထားတာက ပိုၿပီး ခံၿပင္းစရာ ေကာင္းပါ၏

Basic Principles

6.(f) Enabling the Defense Services to be able to participate in the National Political leadership role of State. တဲ႕

ႏုိင္ငံေတာ္ရဲ႕ ႏုိင္ငံေရး အခန္းက႑မွာမွ ရိုးရိုး က်ရာေနရာက ပါမွာ မဟုတ္ဘူး ေခါင္းေဆာင္ပိုင္း ဦးစီးဦးေဆာင္ပိုင္း leadership role က ပါမွာ အဲ႕ဒီအခ်က္ ရွိေနသ၍ ၂၅ က်ပ္သားက ေလ်ာ႕လာစရာ မရွိဘူး အဲ႕ဒီ႕ အခ်က္ကို
စ ၿပီး ၿပင္ႏုိင္မွာ ေနာင္ ၿပင္ခ်င္တဲ႕ ကိစၥေတြ အတြက္ လြယ္လင္႕တကူ ၿဖစ္လာမယ္

  • Langjaw Bawm NU Defense Services နဲ႕ Politics က ေတာင္နဲ႕ ေျမာက္ပဲ .. အႏွစ္ငါးဆယ္ ပါေလရာ လုပ္လာေတာ့ ေနရာတကာ ပါခ်င္တုန္းပဲ .<“>
  • Banyar Aung အဲဒီလို ၂၅ သားကိုအလြယ္တကူေမာင္းထုတ္လို႔ရမယ္လို႔ထင္လား ဟိုက ဆရာႀကီးေနာ္ဝါရင့္သမၻာရင့္ႀကီး က်ြန္ေတာ္ကေတာ့မလြယ္ဘူးလို႔ထင္တယ္ အင္ဒိုနီးရွား နိုင္ငံရဲ႕အသြင္ကူးေျပာင္းေရးကိုေလ့လာသင့္ပါတယ္ အဲလိုမဟုတ္ရင္ မေမွ်ာ္မွန္းနိုင္တဲ့ဆိုးက်ိဳးေတြရလာလိမ့္မယ္ ြ
  • Nyi Thit 25 % ကေန 20 % ေလာက္ ေရာက္ေအာင္ လုပ္ႏုိင္ဖို႕ လိုပါတယ္ အကုန္ ေမာင္းထုတ္ရမယ္လုိ႕ မဆိုလိုပါဘူး
  • Langjaw Bawm NU စစ္တပ္ဆိုတာ တိုင္းျပည္ရဲ႕ အနာဂတ္ေခါင္းေဆာင္ေတြ .. တိုင္းျပည္ကို အုပ္ခ်ဳပ္ရမယ့္သူေတြ ဆိုတဲ့ အျမင္ အစြဲအလမ္းၾကီးကို ခုေခတ္ ဗိုလ္ေပါက္စေတြက အစ ခံယူေနၾကပံုပဲ .. စစ္တပ္က တိုင္းျပည္ကာကြယ္ေရး၊ Disaster Response ေတြကလြဲလို႕ ဘယ္ေနရာမွာမွ သံုးစရာ မရွိဘူးဆိုတဲ့ အသိေတြကို သူတို႕ကို ေသခ်ာ ရိုက္သြင္းရမယ္
  • Banyar Aung YEAH မွန္တယ္ကိုညီ ျဖည္းျဖည္းေလ်ာ့ရမွာ သူတို႔စိတ္ပါလာေအာင္လုပ္ဖို႔လြယ္ပါ့မလား
  • စစ္ဗိုလ္နိုင္ ရွစ္လံုး အဲဒါကအေၿခခံဥပေဒဆြဲဖို႔အမ်ိဳးသားညီလာခံစဖြဲ႔ကတည္းကခ်ေပးလိုက္တဲ့ဦးတည္ခ်က္ေခါင္းစဥ္။လမ္းေပၚထြက္ၿပင္မွရမယ္။
  • စစ္ဗိုလ္နိုင္ ရွစ္လံုး ေညာင္နွစ္ပင္ေခတ္ကမဟုတ္ဘူ။က်ိဲက္ကစံေခတ္ကတည္းက
  • Zaw Win Aung လမ္းေပၚထြက္ၿပင္ခ်င္ရင္ ေတာ္ ကားသာၿပင္ဗ်ာ.. အားယား လမ္းေပၚတက္ခ်င္ေနက်တာ…………
  • Nyi Thit တကယ္တမ္း အင္ဒိုနီးရွား စတိုင္ ဆိုၿပီး ၂၅ % သား ထားရွိရၿခင္းက တကယ္႕ အက်ိဳးထက္ သူတို႕ ပါ၀ါ မွ်ေၿခရွိေအာင္လုပ္တဲ႕အေပၚမွာ ဆင္ေၿခတစ္ခု အေနနဲ႕ ရွိေနတာက ပိုပါတယ္ ဘယ္ၿပည္သူကမွလည္း ေရြးခ်ယ္ထားတဲ႕ အမတ္ေတြမဟုတ္ဘူး ဦးမင္းေအာင္လွိဳင္က ေခါင္းေခါက္ၿပီး ဘယ္သူသြား ဘယ္…See More
  • Langjaw Bawm NU I know that 25% cannot be kicked out in 3 years time span or so .. we can only go thru a gradual change. But what I really concern is the attitudes of the generals towards the politics. They consider themselves to be the future leaders of Myanmar rathe…See More
  • Ye Aung Defense Services နဲ႕ Leadership role ေခါင္းေတာင္နည္းနည္းမူးသြားတယ္ အီေကြးရွင္းထုတ္ၾကည့္ရတာ
  • စစ္ဗိုလ္နိုင္ ရွစ္လံုး ၿပင္ခ်င္တယ္ဆိုရင္ေၿပာတာပါကြားမထြက္ခိုင္းပါဘူး။အဲဒီအခ်က္ကအသက္ဘဲလို႔ေၿပာတာ
  • Oneto Onemyanmar ျဖည္းျဖည္းျပင္သြားရမယ္ အဓိကက NLD အေနနဲ႔ လြတ္ေတာ္မွာ အမတ္ဦးေရ မ်ားမ်ားရမွပဲ ျပင္ခ်င္တယ္ ဆုိ ၇၅% ေက်ာ္မွဆုိေတာ့ စစ္တပ္ကုိ ေအာင္ျမင္စြာ ဆုတ္ခြာခုိင္းရမယ္
    Civilian control of the military is a doctrine in military and political science that places ultimate responsibility for a country’s strategic decision-making in the hands of the civilian political leadership, rather than professional military officers. One author, paraphrasing Samuel P. Huntington’s writings in The Soldier and the State, has summarized the civilian control ideal as “the proper subordination of a competent, professional military to the ends of policy as determined by civilian authority”. [1]

    Civilian control is often seen as a prerequisite feature of a stable, liberal democracy. Use of the term in scholarly analyses tends to take place in the context of a democracy governed by elected officials, though the subordination of the military to political control is not unique to these societies. One example is the People’s Republic of China. Mao Zedong stated that “Our principle is that the Party commands the gun, and the gun must never be allowed to command the Party,” reflecting the primacy of the Communist Party of China (and communist parties in general) as decision-makers in Marxist-Leninist and Maoist theories of democratic centralism.[2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian_control_of_the_military.

    As noted by University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill professor Richard H. Kohn “civilian control is not a fact but a process”.[3] Affirmations of respect for the values of civilian control notwithstanding, the actual level of control sought or achieved by the civilian leadership may vary greatly in practice, from a statement of broad policy goals that military commanders are expected to translate into operational plans, to the direct selection of specific targets for attack on the part of governing politicians. National Leaders with limited experience in military matters often have little choice but to rely on the advice of professional military commanders trained in the art and science of warfare to inform the limits of policy; in such cases, the military establishment may enter the bureaucratic arena to advocate for or against a particular course of action, shaping the policy-making process and blurring any clear-cut lines of civilian control.
    Many of the Founding Fathers of the United States were suspicious of standing militaries. As Samuel Adams wrote in 1768, “Even when there is a necessity of the military power, within a land, a wise and prudent people will always have a watchful and jealous eye over it” [5]. Even more forceful are the words of Elbridge Gerry, a delegate to the American Constitutional Convention, who wrote that “[s]tanding armies in time of peace are inconsistent with the principles of republican Governments, dangerous to the liberties of a free people, and generally converted into destructive engines for establishing despotism.”
    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive, will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defense against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.
    Maoist military-political theories of people’s war and democratic centralism also support the subordination of military forces to the directives of the communist party (although the guerrilla experience of many early leading Communist Party of China figures may make their status as civilians somewhat ambiguous). In a 1929 essay On Correcting Mistaken Ideas in the Party, Mao explicitly refuted “comrades [who] regard military affairs and politics as opposed to each other and [who] refuse to recognize that military affairs are only one means of accomplishing political tasks”, prescribing increased scrutiny of the People’s Liberation Army by the Party and greater political training of officers and enlistees as a means of reducing military autonomy [8]. In Mao’s theory, the military — which serves both as a symbol of the revolution and an instrument of the dictatorship of the proletariat — is not merely expected to defer to the direction of the ruling non-uniformed Party members (who today exercise control in the People’s Republic of China through the Central Military Commission), but also to actively participate in the revolutionary political campaigns of the Maoist era.
    Civilian leaders cannot usually hope to challenge their militaries by means of force, and thus must guard against any potential usurpation of powers through a combination of policies, laws, and the inculcation of the values of civilian control in their armed services. The presence of a distinct civilian police force, militia, or other paramilitary group may mitigate to an extent the disproportionate strength that a country’s military possesses; civilian gun ownership has also been justified on the grounds that it prevents potential abuses of power by authorities (military or otherwise). Opponents of gun control have cited the need for a balance of power in order to enforce the civilian control of the military.
    You see…even in Ancient Rome…Military Commander are prohibited from entering the capital for the fear of coup. If any commander enter with his army…regarded as treason to CIVILIAN SENATE and given death sentence…The idiom “Crossing the Rubicon” means to pass a point of no return, and refers to Julius Caesar’s army’s crossing of the river in 49 BC, which was considered an act of insurrection. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rubicon
    These problems could be avoided if U Nu had tackled Ne Win early. Ne Win’s “soldiers” like Mg Mg entre U Nu’s room with pistol and put on the table. (Tartae Sanae thar by U Nu) When the security assigned soldiers to Ministers told the ministers that soldiers need not sacrifice their lives protecting civilian ministers….Ne Win should be kicked out. See how British PM kick out its commander in chief after WW2. Obama also kicked out his commander after war in Libya? or ?Iraq.
    Lwin Htet Paing Thanks a lot Ko Ko Gyi!! thanks like a billion times for sharing ur knowledge!!
     

    Kyawthu Sukyi Ko Ko Gyi ! ! !

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: