Maintaining civil-military balance is one of the most critical challenges for democratic states. The institutional challenge requires keeping the military strong enough to protect the state, while ensuring it remains obedient to civilian leadership—a dynamic political scientist Samuel Huntington termed the "civilian control paradox".

A few examples can just be pointed out here as to how, ultimately, a balanced system of governance comes to consolidate itself, ensuring that civil and military institutions function in their respective constitutional orbits. The first case is that of US President Truman vs MacArthur (1951). During the Korean War, General Douglas MacArthur—a national hero—publicly defied President Harry S. Truman’s strategic policy, and the President relieved MacArthur of his command. The second case is from post-WWII West Germany, which needed to rebuild its military (the Bundeswehr) without resurrecting Prussian militarism or political independence. Reformers introduced Innere Führung (Internal Leadership), framing the soldier as a "Staatsbürger in Uniform" (Citizen in Uniform). The third example comes from Turkey’s post-2000 reforms (dismantling the guardian military). For decades, the Turkish Armed Forces (TSK) operated as self-appointed guardians of secularism, conducting multiple direct and indirect coups (1960, 1971, 1980, 1997) via the powerful National Security Council (MGK). To resolve this issue, structural legislative reforms throughout the 2000s systematically reorganised the MGK.

Above notwithstanding, modern........

© The Nation