The idea behind the concept is to bring military apparatus under the control of an elected civilian authority. Some other phrases used for civilian supremacy are civilian control of the army and democratic control of armed forces. A Geneva-based institution called DCAF explains the concept as “the norms and standards governing the relationship between the armed forces and society, whereby the armed forces are subordinated to democratically-elected authorities and subject to the oversight of the judiciary as well as the media and civil society organizations.”
With the growing need for security sector reform, emanating from increasing security threats, the concept of civilian control of the security forces, including the army, is widely gaining currency all over the world.
With the growing need for security sector reform, emanating from increasing security threats, the concept of civilian control of the security forces, including the army, is widely gaining currency all over the world. Basically, there are two elements to security sector reform. One is to increase the capacity and effectiveness of the security agencies and the other is to bring them under civilian control. These twin concepts go in parallel with “objective” and “subjective” controls of the army. If subjective control presupposes civilian control, objective control presupposes professionalism and autonomy of the armed forces. These two concepts are complementary as well as supplementary. There is no point controlling the armed forces if it cannot achieve the desired results. We need a strong army that is subordinated to civilian control. And these two concepts – strong army and subordinated to civilian authority – can also be contradictory. Hence, the need for careful understanding.
However, we have people arguing for objective control in place of subjective control. The fact is that when it comes to armed forces in Nepal, there is clearly a lack of both forms of control. The present debate in the Constituent Assembly over conscripted soldiers vs voluntary soldiers would have been very meaningful if it had been guided by these two elements of control.
It is much more difficult to bring the army under civilian control in countries having an authoritarian ruler and/or if it has been affected by civil wars. Since Nepal had both the elements – authoritarian regime (absolute monarchy) and civil war (Maoist insurgency) – it’s case, until recently, was not only unique but also complex. A third element – lack of development – has always made the Nepali situation more complicated. Democratization, development and peace-building are the three cornerstones of Nepal’s security sector reform agenda.
When it comes to a debate on a possible army coup in Nepal, we have people arguing that the army should not do it, it will not do it, it cannot do it and even if it does, it won’t be enduring. Such arguments do not hold water as one cannot experiment with coup d’etat. Moreover, what we have experienced is a consistent history where the army has been mobilized to suppress and decimate opposition voices to save a regime. The modern history of our army is all about attaining internal objectives rather than defending external aggression. We really need to be extra cautious in mobilizing the army for meeting internal threats and challenges.
Rather than bringing the army under civilian control, politicians of post-1990 multi-party era opted for its benign neglect. Prof Dhurba Kumar outlines four factors for the present state of weak democratic control of the army in Nepal. First, the Constitution of 1990 effectively denied the power to the peoples’ representatives to control security agencies. Second, the existing oversight agencies also failed to discharge their duties properly. Third, the politicians showed little interest (due to sensitivity) and capacity (due to technicality) to probe into the security sector. Fourth, the then governments also undermined or discouraged whatever role was played by the parliament to bring security sector under control.
Totally ignoring the obduracy of army to the reform process, the security pundits in Nepal like to put all the blame on Nepali politicians. They claim that the present drive is more on gaining subjective control of the army based primarily on negative projection of the national institution. From the remarks coming from the military quarters, it is clear that the army is highly opposed to the democratization process inscribed in the Comprehensive Peace Agreement and the Interim Constitution.
Along with the centuries of allegiance to monarchy, the benign neglect and the status quo protection have only helped to isolate Nepali army from the populace. After the former monarchy, the army must be the most introverted and insulated institution in Nepal. Washington-based think tank specializing on security issues, Fund for Peace (2006) comments, “The military has traditionally been loyal to the monarchy and remains so to this day, although it has the potential to become an independent political force. The military operates with impunity and has been involved in a number of human rights abuses, including torture and unlawful killings.”
Related story
Bhutan confers highest civilian award on PM Modi
_20191222200001.jpg)
-1200x560-1779450784.webp)
