Executive Summary

Persistent internal conflict forces states to seek coercive stability. Two common strategies emerge: politicizing the military to govern internal disputes or militarizing the police to suppress unrest. Both approaches alter the balance between state authority, civil society, and the rule of law. This paper analyzes the circumstances leading governments to choose one path over the other and examines the long-term consequences for governance, legitimacy, and social stability.

I. Introduction

Persistent conflict—whether rooted in insurgency, criminal violence, ethnic division, or ideological unrest—pressures governments to expand coercive capabilities. Civilian institutions often lack resilience, and state leaders must decide whether to harness the military for domestic control or transform the police into a paramilitary force. This decision has profound implications for democratic health, civil liberties, and regime durability.

II. Conceptual Framework

1. Politicization of the Military

The politicization of the military involves drawing the armed forces into domestic political and governance structures. Military officers are given authority over internal security, policymaking, or administrative functions.

Key features:

Military officers as governors or ministers Use of the army in crowd control, elections, or domestic policing Military loyalty tied to ruling elites or political factions

2. Militarization of the Police

The militarization of the police refers to transforming law enforcement into an armed, paramilitary force resembling the military in training, equipment, and culture.

Key features:

Deployment of military-grade weapons and vehicles Aggressive policing tactics and rules of engagement Blurred distinction between community safety and counterinsurgency

III. Circumstances Driving the Choice

A. Drivers of Politicizing the Military

State Fragility: Weak or fragmented political institutions push rulers to rely on the military as the most coherent national body. Elite Bargains: Political elites secure their survival by giving the military a share in governance. Insurgency Threats: Prolonged insurgencies encourage deploying the military internally, overriding police capacity. Populist or Authoritarian Leaders: Leaders may empower generals to signal strength and bypass weak civilian bureaucracies.

B. Drivers of Militarizing the Police

Urbanized Conflict: Persistent unrest in cities requires permanent coercive presence, which militarized police can provide. Desire for Civilian Façade: Regimes may want a security force that looks civilian but behaves militarily, preserving democratic legitimacy. Historical Mistrust of the Military: States with histories of coups may strengthen paramilitary police forces instead of inviting the army into politics. Criminal Violence: When threats stem more from organized crime than insurgency, militarized police are often the preferred instrument.

IV. Consequences

A. Consequences of Politicizing the Military

Erosion of Civil-Military Boundaries The military loses neutrality, becoming a political actor. This risks coup-making, factionalism, and long-term instability. Undermining Democracy Militarized governance subordinates civilian oversight and dilutes parliamentary or judicial authority. Temporary Order, Long-term Fragility While the army can impose stability, its involvement in daily governance erodes professionalism and accountability. Regional Case Examples Egypt post-2013, where the military entrenched itself as a political-economic elite. Pakistan, where military governments repeatedly intervened in civilian politics, stalling democratic maturation.

B. Consequences of Militarizing the Police

Escalation of Domestic Violence Police trained in military tactics treat citizens as enemies, increasing civilian casualties and public resentment. Normalization of Exceptional Force Military-grade equipment and tactics seep into everyday policing, eroding community trust and civil rights. Parallel Power Structures A powerful paramilitary police force may rival the army, creating security fragmentation. Regional Case Examples Brazil’s Military Police, whose paramilitary posture deepens cycles of urban violence. The United States’ post-9/11 police militarization, leading to concerns about civil liberties and community alienation.

V. Comparative Assessment

Dimension

Politicized Military

Militarized Police

Legitimacy Risk

Coup risk, politicized governance

Erosion of civilian trust, human rights violations

Short-Term Stability

High (order through coercion)

Medium (suppression of unrest, but localized instability)

Long-Term Cost

Institutional fragility, authoritarian entrenchment

Social fragmentation, community-police antagonism

International Impact

Regional coups, civil-military imbalance

International human rights criticism, policing reforms pressure

VI. Policy Considerations

Strengthening Civil Institutions Both paths undermine democratic resilience. Investment in courts, legislatures, and bureaucracies is essential to avoid reliance on coercive tools. Hybrid Risks Many states pursue both strategies simultaneously, leading to dual coercive capture and compounded instability. International Actors Foreign governments and international organizations must weigh the risks of supporting military governments versus training militarized police forces. Exit Strategies Any reliance on military or militarized policing must include plans for demobilization, retraining, and reintegration into civilian structures.

VII. Conclusion

Persistent conflict tempts governments into expedient reliance on coercive institutions. The choice between politicizing the military or militarizing the police is rarely a neutral one: both erode the delicate balance of civil order, governance, and liberty. The long-term consequences—whether in the form of entrenched authoritarian militaries or alienated populations under militarized policing—suggest that strengthening civilian capacity is the only sustainable path. States must resist the allure of short-term order achieved through coercive shortcuts and instead commit to the difficult task of institutional resilience.