Ambiguous Effects of a Military Dictatorship

The governments under the control of a military junta call upon the armed forces to take over security, worrying political activists and targeting opposition using abusive state security forces.

by Zulkifli Nazim

During his reign as emperor of China, Emperor Wu of Liang (502–549 AD) embraced and promoted the golden age of Chinese Buddhism. He came to be seen as the Chinese counterpart of the Indian Buddhist Emperor Asoka the Great.


The Most Venerable Bodhidharma, the first Zen patriarch of China, came to visit Emperor Wu around 520 AD. He was a Buddhist Monk who lived during the 5th or 6th century. He is traditionally credited as the transmitter of Chan Buddhism to China, and regarded as its first Chinese patriarch. According to Chinese legend, he also began the physical training of the monks of Shaolin Monastery that led to the creation of Shaolin Kungfu.

The Emperor told Bodhidharma, "I have built numerous temples and given financial support to the monastic community. Please tell me how much merit will I get for these deeds?"

Bodhidharma replied, "None whatsoever. You have not done anything out of piety nor out of wanting to do good. Pretending to do good, you only wanted to purchase merit, but remember that merit cannot be purchased."

Furious and perplexed, the emperor asked Bodhidharma:

"Who are you to tell me such things? I demand to know, who are you?'
Bodhidharma replied, "Your Majesty, I don't know." – Think, reflect and ponder.

We are in a world where democracy is buffeted on many fronts—the rise of populists who often undermine the rule of law, a growing disinterest in democracy promotion from leaders of the world, and the influence of major authoritarian powers—armed forces remain political actors in many countries.

The world is going to pot. That bizarre critique, popular with dictators and criminals, has taken hold some rights supporters are stunned by the assault on liberal values that defines our age and most likely undermine freedom of the masses.

Recent shifts in public opinion on the military’s role in politics are striking.

The traditional authoritarian states seek monopolistic control over political life, a one-party system organized around a strongman or military junta, and direct rule by the executive, sometimes through martial law, with little or no role for the parliament.

A military junta is a government led committee of military leaders. The term junta means "meeting" or "committee" and originated in the national and local junta organized by the Spanish resistance to Napoleon's invasion of Spain in 1808. The term is now used to refer to an authoritarian form of government

Traditional dictatorships and totalitarian regimes were often defined by closed, command, or autarkic economies where countries not relying on imports, a state media monopoly with formal censorship, and “civil society” organizations structured as appendages of the ruling party or state. Especially in military dictatorships, the use of force—including military tribunals, curfews, arbitrary arrests, political detentions, and summary execution will become pervasive. Often facing international isolation, traditional dictatorships and totalitarian regimes have a tendency to forge alliances based on common ideologies.

Even in regions where the scars left by juntas are still somewhat fresh, the military bulldozes its way in an effort eroding civilian democracy without much pushback or panic.

The governments under the control of a military junta call upon the armed forces to take over security, worrying political activists and targeting opposition using abusive state security forces.

There are multiple reasons that people in democracies, especially the middle and upper classes, increasingly think that army interventions could be acceptable — and that the military could preserve liberal norms or hamper illiberal populists. Disillusionment with democratic government in a number of places has fostered a willingness to consider authoritarian alternatives.

Meanwhile, in a world increasingly looking for strongman rule as an alternative to democracy, to solve crises of graft and a lack of political accountability by elected leaders, military men have become more attractive. Consequently, the military retains significant political leverage and total control over internal security. It doubtful that the armed forces would even consult the civilian government before acting.

There are arguably few advantages and more disadvantages of military dictatorship governments, with advantages including the possible deposition of a prior, ineffective government and disadvantages including a totalitarian and oppressive government whose authority derives from military power and intimidation rather than democratic choice of the people. A nation's military takes over the government and remains in power due to superior force, is generally not generally considered to be a fair and equitable form of government.

Advantages for those living under a military dictatorship are typically few and far between, but those who are in power tend to enjoy advantages such as unquestioned authority, nearly unlimited power, and access to a wider range of resources than are typically offered to citizens within the same nation. Additionally, military dictatorships tend to be ruled by a single individual who has no real accountability. Military dictators tend to lead their countries for a long time, very rarely stepping down voluntarily, meaning that violent struggle is necessary to implement a different style of government.

A case in point - the current North Korean government is an example of a military dictatorship; the rulers of this nation have all been of the same family and have carried out oppression and harsh imprisonment against their own people.

Majority of politicians, for reasons better known to them, who are hell bent on favouring and supporting oppressive military regimes all over the world, whether male or female, are completely egocentric, trapped inside themselves incapable of empathizing or identifying with others, or love, friendship, affection of tenderness.

They are a completely isolated unit, incapable of rapport with anyone. Their responses are entirely visceral and illogical, not cerebral. Their intelligence is a mere tool in the services of their selfish drives and needs; they are incapable of mental passion, mental interaction; they can't relate to anything other than their own physical and personal greed. They are half-dead, unresponsive lumps, incapable of giving or receiving kindness or happiness; consequently, they are at best blobs, indistinct shapeless forms. They are trapped in a twilight zone halfway between humans and apes, and are far worse off than the apes because, unlike the apes, they are capable of a large array of negative feelings - hate, jealousy, contempt, disgust, guilt, shame, doubt, and moreover, they are aware of what they are and what they are not.

To call a politician an animal is to flatter him or her. They are machines, walking predators, eaten up with guilt, shame, fears and insecurities; and crying for protection. Completely egocentric, unable to relate, empathize or identify, and are almost invariably guilty of pervasive gross moral negligence – all for personal gains and never for the country or its people.

The truth is, these very same politicians will join hands to establish a military junta and support a “Constitution” that will be enacted by the junta so as to deliberately weaken big political parties, notably by introducing a new system of proportional representation for elections. Then there will be a series of laws passed which will further constrict political life. All this will help to ensure that only a chaotic coalition emerges from an election, whenever it is held.

The intention is to thwart the alliance of political parties. In the meantime, the absurdly strict rules will be introduced by the junta after seizing power to remain in force. Political gatherings will be limited to a very few people or even banned, making it difficult both to craft policy and gather support. Other regulations dictate when and how party figures can communicate with prospective voters. Politicians whom we have described will be gagged and maimed, literally and metaphorically - they will never be able to complain about anything whatsoever, anymore.