NEMZETI KÖZSZOLGÁLATI EGYETEM
Hadtudományi Doktori Iskola
Wolfgang Peischel:
Relations between Functional Principles of Democracies and their Armed Forces
An Analysis of relevant Influencing Factors and their systemic Interdependence
Doktori (PhD) értekezés
(DRAFT)
Témavezetö:
Dr. habil. András Ujj, CSc
…………………………………..
Wien, 2013
PREFACE
Europe currently steers a security-political course, characterized by shrinking defence budgets of its member-states, whereas sub-conventional risks, as e.g. named under the „New Threats“ in NATO´s Strategic Concept of 1999, simultaneously are increasing. Regardless if this paradox is accepted as an unavoidable necessity or if it is considered the result of short-sighted strategic thinking, it will coercively result in a twofold challenge for military leaders. On the one hand, the latter will be confronted with increasingly complex requirements in the field of joint command and control because limited resources will have to be compensated by command and control-/leadership-superiority. On the other hand, they will – in the sense of a whole of government/comprehensive approach - be supposed to contribute to strategy development, at the interface with political leadership. Both objectives require one, compared to the current level, significantly higher proportion of military-scientific, tertiary educated military leaders. Here does the request seem reasonable, that military science, particularly in its original core subjects, has to be performed both in terms of research and teaching, by military leaders[1], who acquire their teaching-qualification through an institution in which direct and permanent reference is guaranteed to the armed forces, and which is capable of generating the “new blood” for its teachers-cadre, at least concerning the core subjects, within itself. In terms of an advance towards this goal, it just seems a matter of urgency for general staff officers, to complete a PhD-degree in the field of military science. This was the motivation for me, to take up academic studies at the Doctoral School of " Zrínyi Miklós Defence University” in Budapest, which, in this area of science, deservedly can be seen as a pioneer of modern military sciences, which commit themselves to a “whole of government/comprehensive security” – understanding, that will become crucial for the perpetuated actionability of democratic states as warrantors of a peaceful local as well as global development and for the survival of the principle democratic freedoms, they stand for and upon which they are based.
The epistemological foundations, security political - strategic correlations and armed forces-specific analyses, that had been picked out as central themes in the course of the PhD-program, were a reliable basis for the development of a model for the representation and target-oriented control of interdependencies, arising from a network of closely interconnected effects, concerning functional principles of democracies as well as factors, specific to military leadership.
At this point, sincere thanks are given to the Doctoral School of the Zrínyi Miklós Defense University Budapest, its teachers and its far-sightedness regarding the creation of a broadly diversified topics-canon, that does not only meet future challenges for military scientific researchers and teachers, but also clearly exceeds them.
I also explicitly would like to express my thanks to my supervisor, Dr. habil. Ándras Ujj, CSc for his assistance with the orientation of the subject, his expertise in the field of scientific methodology, his tireless willingness to be available to me as an sharp-witted, highly expert, dialectical counterpart in the corroborating of my theses.
Wolfgang Peischel
ii
Relations between Functional Principles of Democracies and their Armed Forces
an Analysis of relevant Influencing Factors and their systemic Interdependence
Table of Contents page
Introduction page 1
1. Research Design page 14
1.1. Research Framework page 15
1.2. Academic Problem, Hypothesis page 19
1.2.1. Problems page 19
1.2.2. Hypothesis page 22
1.3. Research Questions page 27
1.4. Methods page 29
1.4.1. Composition of the chosen theory-/method-set page 30
1.4.2. Theory of International Relations page 31
1.4.3. Singular-sciences/-disciplines-related methods page 33
1.5. Research Structure page 38
1.6. Research Targets page 42
1.7. Envisaged Added Value page 47
2. The structured analysis-model page 49
2.1. Basic function, practical application of the structured analysis-model page 51
2.2. Assessment of the respective user´s initial situation page 59
2.2.1. Basic categorization of democratic functional principles page 59
2.2.2. The Particular Influence of the democratic principle on the security of the state page 61
2.2.3. Armed forces and the sovereignty of the state page 69
2.2.3.1. The current security policy paradigm of the Western state community page 69
2.2.3.2 Starting point for the practical application of the structured analysis model page 72
2.2.3.2.1. Basic factors-complexes that affect the relationship between
the state and armed forces page 73
2.2.3.2.2. Significant test-questions for the determination of the respective
underlying relationship between the state and its armed forces page 74
2.3. Theoretical framework page 98
2.4. Engineering the structured analysis-interface, explanation of its basic function page 99
2.4.1. Democratic functional principles of the state page 106
2.4.2. Democracy relevant functional principles/phenomena/factors of military leadership page 128
2.4.3. Categorization-dimensions page 149
2.4.3.1. Participation page 150
2.4.3.2. Internal functional capability of armed forces page 154
2.4.3.3. Mission-effectiveness page 158
2.5. Intermediate summary of chapter 2 page 159
3. Analysis of selected, significant, democracy relevant functional principles/phenomena/
factors of military leadership page 161
3.1. Thinking about war page 163
3.2. Leadership philosophy (theoretical basics) page 173
3.3. Humanistic general education in the Humboldtian sense page 182
3.4. Organic Leadership page 193
3.5. Strategy related principles page 200
3.6. Values “Constitution” within the armed forces page 213
3.7. Intermediate summary of chapter 3 page 221
4. Engineerig the systemic interdependency – network page 226
5. New scientific results, future prospects, recommendation page 241
6. Conclusion – verification/corroboration of the hypothesis page 249
7. Bibliography page 259
Annex 1: Illustrations
Annex 2: Extended theoretical framework to be used as toolset for the respective national
analysis
1. Embedding into general scientific research-disciplines Annex 2 1
1.1. Rational approach Annex 2 1
1.2 Empirical approach Annex 2 2
1.3 Synergy between rational/theoretical and empirical approach Annex 2 3
1.4 Postmodern approach Annex 2 6
1.5 Political Science-derived approaches Annex 2 7
2. Classic philosophical and general theories about the relationship between the armed forces
and the state Annex 2 10
v
1. Introduction
„Fourscore and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal. Now we are engaged in a great civil war, testing whether that nation, or any nation, so conceived and so dedicated, can long endure … and that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth.[2]”
Abraham Lincoln, 16th President of the United States
With the above quotation can the starting point and at the same time the core-logic of the present research be captured significantly in a few words.
In his timeless Gettysburg Address, Abraham Lincoln defined democracy through freedom and the innate equality of all people. The war, and thus the armed forces that fought it - this could be inferred - were necessary to keep the nation alive. Without the engagement of armed forces, freedom and equality wouldn’t have been possible to be guaranteed. Citizens had to fight for the survival of the nation with their weapon in hand, to make their contribution to defense and even to sacrifice their lives in order to ensure, that the “government of the people, by the people, for the people”, i.e. that “democracy” survives. Only if the citizens contribute to the defense of democracy, the state, which guarantees the citizens their fundamental freedoms, may survive - otherwise it would lose its ability to act and the participation of citizens would lead itself to absurdity.
The very similar basic idea, that already had been formulated by ancient Greek philosophers, e.g. Plato or Aristotle, could - at least in a figurative sense - be understood as envisaging a state-model that makes democratic participation depend on the single citizens´ willingness to contribute to the common defense of the polis - thus defining the right to vote as a reward, that is due to them, granted by the community because of their readiness to vindicate the polis´ security. This interpretation towards a „who is not willing to defend, shall not be granted the right to vote“ – principle might be considered slightly hyperbolical, but in its core this deliberately exaggerated pattern defines the primordial relation of democracies and their armed forces via the synallagmatic interdependence between the participation in democratic decision-making and the personal willingness to undergo military service, respectively to contribute to the polis´ defense.
The Age of Enlightenment has resulted in well-educated middle classes in Europe and subsequently had led to the decline and finally the collapse of the then settled monarchies. Via the intermediate step of “constitutional monarchies” they had transformed to real democracies by the end, respectively in the aftermath of World War I. Forms of governments that were able to comply with the requirements of modern pluralistic democracies (apart from early constitutions such as the one of the United States of 1787, or the one of France of 1791, by which the absolutist- was transformed into a constitutional monarchy[3]) could not be achieved until the end of World War II, which in some way is to be seen as the discharge of tensions, World War I had generated and left unsolved.
Although there had been attempts to establish constitutions based upon democratic principles, already before 1918 (e.g. Basic Democratic Rights Catalogue – “Grundrechtskatalog” of the Austrian Constitution 1867) they particularly in Germany and Austria had been suspended in the era of National Socialism, and did not live up until 1945.
Despite the fact, that nationalism has to be identified as one of the driving factors, that have led to World War II, the nation state had survived the latter as the primary pattern for political order – but from then on, under a quality of constitutional principles that allowed for the codetermination by those, who were most directly affected by the sufferings of war. Thus education – rather in the role of a catalyst, respectively precondition for modern democratic structures than as a resulting factor – has to be dealt with, as one of the major “democratic functional principles”, which is responsible for the stabilizing, peace-ensuring effect of pluralistic democracies.
Although the decision, to which degree the offensive use of armed forces will be integral part of the state´s foreign policy, from then on - at least theoretically - lay in the hand of the voter. The nation state-principle, which had been identified as one of the main causes of the world wars, was not yet overcome. However the emergence of the Warsaw Pact had resulted in a new common threat for Western Europe, that united the defense efforts of its nations – including the American ones, and led to a concise, solidary and commonly accepted threat perception. By the delimitation against the members of the Warsaw Treaty Organization, there was given birth to the term of a Western State Community, that defined itself, foremost by its opposition to the communist sphere of influence. Of course are the reasons for the emergence of a Western state-community far more complex and can neither exclusively nor one-dimensionally be explained by the opposition to the Warsaw Treaty Organization. The focussing on the development of this opposition in the late ´40s and early ´50s was only used as an example, by which the principle of a "unifying" threat should be depicted.
The fact, that NATO in the beginning aimed at preventing Germany from regaining power and influence but subsequently had to integrate it as a member, in order to balance Soviet preponderance on the continent, might serve as a proof for the thesis, that the above mentioned “unifying” threat, that challenged Western Europe and America “collectively”, was the necessary compulsion to suppress nationalistic egoism, to “tame” excessive nationalism and thereby to enable the values-based development of a Western civil society, that gradually transformed towards the model of a peace-ensuring democracy.
Subsequently the disciplining effect of the Soviet-threat - after the decline of the Warsaw Treaty Organization - was immediately succeeded by the new threats and challenges, which define the basis of NATO´s Strategic Concept 1991.
While the Western State Community prepared itself to get capable of coping with the demands deriving from the new challenge, the network resulting from the development of NATO, EU´s ESDP/CSDP, OSCE and of the UN had consequently intensified, institutionalized and interlocked to a degree, that actually had restricted, partly overcome, in some respect even eroded national autonomy.
Today the state community looks back over more than four decades in which the democratic type of government provided for a peaceful and stable, political development in Western-Europe.
Any possible answer to the question, if Western democracies were able to provide their peace-ensuring effect reliably, only building upon the values- based development and the broadband education of their civil societies, without being exposed to a major threat from the outside or without having available a reliable and sufficient internal mechanism, that had been constructed according to plan, in order to supress nationalistic approaches, which could create rivalry among the members of the Western state community – will remain hypothetic. Due to the reasoning of Kant, the assumption is likely to be correct – but far from being generally valid.
What can be proved anyway, is that modern Western-pluralistic democracies, are able to produce a peace- and stability-ensuring effect, as soon as nationalistic ambitions are tamed by a collective external threat or by internally associating mechanisms. If nation state-based democracies - without ruling out any competitive nationalistic ambitions among them – would be peace- and stability-ensuring by trend, doesn’t need to be verified, as the Western state community builds upon a values-based associating mechanism, represented by NATO respectively the EU. It would be very seducing, to simply neglect the question of the influence of nationalistic ambitions on the peace- and stability-ensuring effect of democracies – just for the reason that they, as shown above, had been tamed continuously since the end of World War II. But what proves true for the analysis of Western pluralistic democracies themselves and their behavior among each other, must not prove true for the strategic goal of projecting peace and stability onto crises areas all over the world. Particularly, because the Western state community´s current security political paradigm aims at projection of democratic principles – thus sowing the seeds for peace – this issue would be worth analyzing in a separate research.