During my graduate studies at Norwich University, one subject that came up several times in the course of my research was the relationship between soldiers and democracy [1]. Two of my long papers (one of them my capstone paper [2]) explicitly deal with the political role of soldiers in two republics. In Chile, a military that thought too highly of its own competence and too little of the rights of people to elect leaders twice overthrew democracy in damaging coups. Other nations, of course, have done far worse or overthrown regimes far more often. In the United States, so far there has never been a military coup, though quite a few generals have been nominated for and elected to the office of president (George Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Winfield Scott (the subject of one of my long papers), Ulysses Grant, and Dwight Eisenhower being only the most famous of them). In many republics, militaries are a threat to the rule of the people, while in the United States the military has a surprising role in increasing popular participation in government.

This is somewhat difficult to believe for those who might not be familiar with military history, but it is a striking fact that deserves commentary. George Washington, of course, gets credit for being the “Father of our country” for serving both as the successful General-in-chief as well as first president of the United States, setting an example of selfless servant leadership and a total lack of inclination in setting up a dictatorship. Andrew Jackson and William Henry Harrison were both influential in unleashing the power of popular politics in the 1830’s, though some of that unleashing meant the unleashing of white violence against the native Americans (a policy enforced, albeit reluctantly, by Winfield Scott, who then became along with Zachary Taylor the instrument of imperialism against Mexico in the 1840’s). Ulysses Grant was a stalwart defender of Reconstruction and the effort to increase the voting rights of freedmen, while Dwight Eisenhower was a moderate who sought to keep the peace in dangerous and contentious times. All of these leaders proved to be able defenders of democracy here in the United States, rather than dangerous threats to the right of the people to choose their leaders. This is true even of unsuccessful candidates like Winfield Scott, who made no efforts to overthrow the American Republic after getting trounced in the 1852 election while serving as the commanding General of the United States Army. This would be unthinkable in some republics even today.

At times the United States military has more directly aided the cause of democracy within the United States (I am not considering the effect of the United States on democracy in other nations, which has been decidedly mixed, especially given the role of the United States military as an imperial force of occupation in some parts of the globe and a defender of democracy in other parts of the globe). In the 1864 election, Abraham Lincoln won about 85% of the soldier’s vote and it was a decisive element in his victory [3]. During the Civil War, it was the fighting and valor of soldiers that pushed reform of absentee voting to allow the possibility of people voting away from home. In this case common, ordinary soldiers helped to provide reform for the politics of many states. Likewise, it was the plight of ordinary soldiers in Vietnam who were risking their lives in a foreign war but not able to vote that led to the passage of the 26th Amendment to the US Constitution, giving the right to vote to all adults in the United States [4]. Here again the service of ordinary soldiers benefited democracy by enlarging the electorate to include young adults between 18 and 21 years of age. Here, as with absentee ballots, soldiers served to make democracy work for many others as well.

We must be clear, obviously, that this relationship is not true in every nation. Every military represents a separate political culture, and there are often different purposes for a military. For the United States military, a volunteer force that prides itself on coming from and representing ordinary civilians for work that is either disaster relief or nearly entirely foreign has led to a great deal of popular support for the military, even if there is widespread disagreement on how the military is used. Other nations’ militaries are primarily used against the people and not to defend or attack foreign foes, and this has led to a great deal of hostility in those nations between those who desire increased democracy and a military that defends corrupt elite interests. Rather than making facile and broad-brushed statements about the relationship of militaries and democracy, we ought to be precise in understanding and detailing the precise nature between a particular military and its own political culture, with the understanding that this relationship generally has a long history and is subject to change either for the better or for the worse.

Interestingly enough, there has been recent controversy in the United States over an attempt to restrict the political rights of soldiers by the present administration [5]. It would appear that our president fears that he has an anti-Lincoln effect with the soldier vote, and does not wish to see those votes maximized, in stark contrast with Lincoln’s efforts to increase the soldier vote in 1864. Where a leader is confident of popularity with soldiers, there will be a great interest in increasing the political rights of those soldiers. Where a leader does not feel confident in the support of soldiers, there will be a decreased interest in defending the political rights of soldiers. Hopefully our republic will not be endangered by a souring relationship between political leaders and the military, as we would all be gravely threatened by anything that might cause soldiers and officers in the military to think themselves better qualified to rule than elected civilians. That is a development no genuine defender of republican virtue or democratic rights wants to see, and it requires that we as a society retain our respect for the military and show great care in how we use it.

[1] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2011/01/28/time-well-wasted-an-introduction/

[2] https://edgeinducedcohesion.wordpress.com/2010/12/06/what-it-takes-to-write-a-norwhich-capstone-paper/

[3] http://www.mrlincolnandnewyork.org/inside.asp?ID=101&subjectID=4

[4] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-sixth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[5] http://www.redstate.com/paulkib/2012/08/03/obama-vs-ohio-soldiers/