Are the two imperatives of the armed forces actually all that different?

The two imperatives of the armed forces do appear to be very different. For a start, their sources are completely different. While the functional imperative stems from the threats to the society’s security; it is the various ideologies, social forces, and the institutions dominant within the society, that determine the societal imperative (Huntington, 1957). Moreover, if the two imperatives were similar, it would seem reasonable to expect there to be societies whose military institutions have been shaped by only one of these imperatives. However, there is no evidence of such societies; and there are good reasons for that. In fact, military institutions, which are shaped only by social values, are unlikely to be capable of effectively dealing with threats to the society’s security. Similarly, military institutions that have been shaped only by functional imperatives are unlikely to remain stable within, and cooperate with, any civilian society (Huntington, 1957). 

It is interesting to note that the armed forces have persistently intervened in the politics of many different countries of the past and present. And their interventions were usually decisive and led to the establishment of military rule in those countries (Finer, 1962). These phenomena may indicate multiple instances of armed forces shaped primarily by the functional imperative; whether because the political intervention was carried out because the civilian authorities were seen as being incapable of securing the society, or because the various ideologies, social forces, and the institutions dominant within the society were deemed inappropriate by the military, which desired to change them in accordance with its vision.

But why should the armed forces be at risk of having social values that are different from the larger society? Don’t all members of the military get inculcated with civilian social values long before they join the military? First, unlike many forms of civilian organization, the military is a purposive instrument, rationally conceived and aimed at fulfilling certain objectives – in particular, fighting and winning wars (Finer, 1962). Second, to help fulfill this purpose, every military has five main features: (1) It has a centralized command. (2) It is hierarchically organized. (3) All of its members are subject to discipline. (4) It is connected by its own communication network. (5) It has its own, unique, epirit de corps, with its corresponding isolation and self-sufficiency of the military. These five features make the armed forces much more highly organized, and hence distinct, from any civilian organizations; while its fifth feature - epirit de corps – imparts and sustains in military professionals uniquely military social values, which may even lead to contempt for civilians (Finer, 1962).

References

Finer, S. E. (1962). The Man on Horseback: The Role of the Military in Politics (pp. 1-22). London: Pinter.

Huntington, S. P. (1957). “Introduction: National Security and Civil-Military Relations.” In: S. P. Huntington, The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations (pp. 1-4). Oxford: Oxford University Press.