For like a while now, there have been a continuous debate on which one is better between the military rule and the civilian rule. Something that seems very easy to understand but it's so funny that certain persons just decided not to see the brighter sides of both governments. After a lengthy analysis, I think it is even better to drop such discussions here on a forum where opinions are freely aired and a board where people with maximum interest in the political system and structure of the society.
Now before I'd rush to say one stands out more than the other between military and civilian rule, it will be better if I first discuss each of these concepts and their major features, the fundamental principles and values that each system prioritizes, which in turn shape their governance, societal impact, and long-term sustainability so that the debate will be based on the facts. Because I believe in knowledge and a smart and intelligent argument tends to teach you more.
MILITARY RULE
As we know it, military rule is very straightforward as the power government is right in the hands of the military. It often emerges from a backdrop of political instability, corruption, or public discontent, stands out most for its embrace of authoritarianism and discipline. It operates on the principle that the state's security and stability are paramount, and in order to achieve this it must wield absolute, unquestionable authority. The major stand outs of the military rule are;
• Command: The military uses a hierarchical command structure as it's primary tool. Decisions are made swiftly by a small group of leaders and are executed or carried out without the encumbrance of public debate, political opposition, or legislative processes. This can be seen as a advantage in times of crisis, where a quick, unified and decisive response is needed. Even also Infrastructure projects, anti-crime campaigns, or economic reforms can be implemented with a speed and forcefulness that civilian governments often cannot match for instance, the case of Burkina Faso.
• Suppression: However all these efficiency are at a cost. The military's emphasis on control means that civil rights—freedom of speech, press, and assembly—are often viewed as obstacles to order and are summarily suppressed. The rule of law becomes arbitrary, and citizens are subject to the will of the ruling leader rather than a legal framework. The dangerous aspect of this system is its lack of accountability as there are no elections, no checks and balances, and no peaceful mechanism for the populace to remove a leader they disagree with. This creates a fertile ground for corruption and human rights abuses, as the leaders answer to no one but themselves.
CIVILIAN RULE
Using legitimacy (legal and general acceptance) and Liberty (civil freedom) as foundational pillars, civil rule particularly in its democratic form stands out as a stark contrast by elevating legitimacy and individual liberty as its highest values. Its core feature is that the government's power is derived from the consent of the governed as the citizens are very much involved in the decision making process. Its major stand outs are:
• Citizen Participation: The very essence of civilian rule is the participation of the people. The citizens have a direct say in who governs them through elections. This process, while often slow and messy, is a powerful tool for holding leaders accountable. Political parties, free press, and a very much active civil society are not just tolerated; they are fundamental components of the system that provide crucial checks and balances against the abuse of power. There also is the separation of powers (legislative, executive, and judicial) ensures that no single person or group can accumulate absolute power.
• Issues of Inefficiency: A very common and valid critique of civilian rule is its perceived inefficiency. The need for compromise, consensus-building, and public consultation can lead to political gridlock and delays in implementing much-needed policies. The system originally is designed to be deliberate, to protect against rash decisions, and this can be frustrating for a populace that demands immediate results. Furthermore, the very freedoms it champions can be exploited. Corruption can fester in a system where powerful special interests and wealthy donors can influence the policy-making process. The exchange of political ideas can descend into political clashes, thus hindering progress.
With all this said, the notable things from every man's perspective is that a person living under military rule might praise the apparent law and order, the lack of crime, and the feeling that a strong hand is at the helm. They might see the suppression as a small price to pay for stability. This perspective is designed by a deep-seated fear of chaos and a yearning for an effective governance.
Conversely, a person living under civilian rule might celebrate their ability to voice an opinion without fear, to challenge a leader, and to participate in shaping their society. They might tolerate the political instabilities and slow progress as a necessary trade-off for their liberty. It is important to note that this view is rooted in a belief in human dignity and the right to choose one's own destiny.
Between both political systems, what truly stands out is the choice between two entirely different visions for society. It can be one where the state is master and the people are subjects, and another where the people are masters and the state is their servant just like John Locke's social contract theory of the state.