Myschool CBT Challenge Season 6 - Cash Prize Of N200,000 To Be Won!

justify the assertion which says that the worst civilian administration is better than best military...

justify the assertion which says that the worst civilian administration is better than best military rule in nigeria?

To get notifications when anyone posts a new answer to this question,
Follow New Answers

Post an Answer

Please don't post or ask to join a "Group" or "Whatsapp Group" as a comment. It will be deleted. To join or start a group, please click here

JAMB 2020 CBT Software - Download Now, It's Free!
JAMB 2020 CBT Mobile App - Download Now, It's Free!

Answers (4)

HENRYVILLA
1 month ago
Military rule, political regime in which the military as an organization holds a preponderance of power. The term military rule as used here is synonymous with military regime and refers to a subtype of authoritarian regime.

For most of human history, attaching military to rule would have been redundant, because almost all political regimes in large-scale societies of the premodern period fused military, religious, economic, and monarchical power. The separation of military and civilian powers and the development of professional bureaucratic armed forces in European states in the 18th and 19th centuries gave birth to the contemporary understanding of military rule.

Not all authoritarian regimes involve military rule. In the 20th century the most-repressive nondemocratic regimes, most notably the Nazis in Germany and the Stalinist regime in the Soviet Union, were party dictatorships in which civilian control of the military was well established. Other types of authoritarian rule distinct from military rule include traditional (e.g., absolutist monarchies) and personalistic, or “sultanistic,” regimes.

00:00
02:45

Since the end of World War II, military rule has occurred almost exclusively in countries of the so-called developing world. Modernization theorists, influential in the 1950s and ’60s, were initially confident that the newly independent nations of the Middle East, Africa, and Asia (as well as Latin America) would evolve into capitalist democracies, with civilian control over the military. Those expectations were dashed by a wave of military coups d’état that reached its height in the 1960s and ’70s.

Like what you’re reading?
Start your free trial today for unlimited access to Britannica.
Origins Of Military Rule
Analyses of the circumstances that lead to the rise of military rule abound. Empirical studies suggest that there is no direct correlation between the size of the military or its budget and its propensity to seize power. Further, the reasons for hierarchical coups (led by the high command) tend to be different from those for coups led by junior officers (those with the rank of, or equivalent to, army captain or below). Rather more useful is the distinction between factors internal to the armed forces, domestic political variables, and international influences. In the first category, violations of military hierarchy by civilian politicians, an expansion of the military’s capacity or sense of mission, and a heightened sense of threat can all trigger coups. With regard to domestic politics, high degrees of political conflict (especially ethnic and religious conflict), economic crises, weak political parties (especially right-wing parties), and low-capacity state institutions have been observed to precede military takeovers. Significant in that category is also the image of the military in national politics and, in particular, the degree of popular identification of the military with certain positive national values. Internationally, the threat of or defeat in war, foreign political and military assistance, and an enabling international environment, including military rule in neighbouring countries and international recognition of military regimes, can facilitate coups. A “cascade effect” has been observed in some regions, whereby military rule, first established in a single country, occurs elsewhere in subsequent years, leading to cooperation between military regimes. (For example, the 1964 coup in Brazil was followed by a coup in Argentina in 1966, coups in Chile and Uruguay in 1973, and another coup in Argentina in 1976.)

Superpower competition was likely an important factor in the proliferation of military regimes seen during the Cold War. Large amounts of military assistance from the United States and the Soviet Union strengthened military capacity within allied or “client” states. Within the U.S. sphere of influence, the increased emphasis on internal security threats in the wake of the Cuban Revolution (1959) contributed to an increase in direct military involvement in politics. Since the end of the Cold War and the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991, there has been a marked decline in the number of military regimes in the developing world.
isaaq
1 month ago
"The worst civilian rule is better than the best military dictatorship." Those were the words of chief Obafemi Awolowo in 1983, the following morning after the military had ransacked his premesis at Apapa and asulted his personal staff and relatives. Well, the latest drama unfolding from Ali Modu Sheriffs vindication and exuneration from allegations of sponsoring Boko haram by his conspirators, has more to butress about this fact. Lets assume a power intoxicated dictator was on seat whilst those allegations emmanated from such a seeminly reliable sorce as it was. The probability is two to one odd that Ali Modu Sheriff, would have either been hanged or sentenced to life imprisonment today. But under thorough civlian blood administrative principles. Due process has ensured that the innocent is vindicated. My purpose for recollecting this fact is to redirect those who still seat back there to refer to Jonathan as clueless, daft and weak sorts of obsenities they care to unleash to our once and ever rational leader. That in true democratic principles, due process rather than power abuse, rules. And there is no better fairness to humanrights than this.
ANTHONY SOLUTION
1 month ago
Empirical studies suggest that there is no direct correlation between the size of the military or its budget and its propensity to seize power. Further, the reasons for hierarchical coups (led by the high command) tend to be different from those for coups led by junior officers (those with the rank of, or equivalent to, army captain or below). Rather more useful is the distinction between factors internal to the armed forces, domestic political variables, and international influences. In the first category, violations of military hierarchy by civilian politicians, an expansion of the military’s capacity or sense of mission, and a heightened sense of threat can all trigger coups. With regard to domestic politics, high degrees of political conflict (especially ethnic and religious conflict), economic crises, weak political parties (especially right-wing parties), and low-capacity state institutions have been observed to precede military takeovers. Significant in that category is also the image of the military in national politics and, in particular, the degree of popular identification of the military with certain positive national values. Internationally, the threat of or defeat in war, foreign political and military assistance, and an enabling international environment, including military rule in neighbouring countries and international recognition of military regimes, can facilitate coups. A “cascade effect” has been observed in some regions, whereby military rule, first established in a single country, occurs elsewhere in subsequent years, leading to cooperation between military regimes. (For example, the 1964 coup in Brazil was followed by a coup in Argentina in 1966, coups in Chile and Uruguay in 1973, and another coup in Argentina in 1976.)
mhz vee
1 month ago
To me it is true Because it allows us to be free and gives us the right to vote for people we want It makes us to rise and speak for ourselves and vote for any one we choose and it gives people respect they deserve even not by greeting or doing something for someone respect is still observed and it governs better than military rule and it limits the freedom of people.


Civil rule is better Civil rule gives citizens the ability to choose their leaders, rather than military rule, where anyone can take over the government. This is because citizens cannot voice their opinions out to the government,and are severly punished when they do and this can lead to protests and murder by the citizen
Civil rule is better Civil rule allows people to stand up to what is right and make the place a better place to live in but military rule doesn't allow people to criticize them so they could correct the areas in which they didn't do well in. Civil rule also allows them to have their own personal way of life

Civil rule is way better Civil rule care about the peolpe and allow them to make their voices heard so it will be a better society but the military they never care a lot about being criticized they only care about their rule and if you try to correcr them they indicate that there would be war

Civil rule is better off course See civil rule is the best because they care of the feeling and choice of the citizen but for the military they say whatever they want to the citizens and all the citizens but obey even it the like or not so i go by the fact that civil is better
Its because the military rule can be very strict and hash In civilian rule they allow civilian's to talk.It is for the people by the people and its ruled by the people. That is why I prescribely hundred percent totally sure that civilian rule is way way way better than military rule thanku or I can say that why I support the motion

Civil rule is better than military rule. Civil rule is better than military rule for several important reasons.First of all civil rule tends to allow for and respect the idea of civil rights.Many of these are designed to protect the rights of the individual which goes against what military rule is all about which is public safety for the larger group.
Civil rule is the only way. A nation under military rule is nothing more than a dictatorship. Civil rule means that the military, which is an incredibly powerful entity in any country, is responsible to the people rather than their own leaders. Military rule will lead only to abuse and a failure to have the government accountable to the people

The Military Should Serve The People The military should always be an extension of a democratically elected civilian government. It should never be the government itself. The military, by it's nature, is not a democratic institution; you follow orders, and you don't vote on what those orders are. Governments run that way are authoritarian regimes at best.

Yes, It Is Only a f**l would seriously state that military rule is better than the civil rule of law. As history has shown so many times, totalitarian regimes are not exactly the best places to live. A civil and just democracy is the best way for ideas and economies to flourish, as has been shown.
Ask Your Own Question

Quick Questions

See More Kogi State Polytechnic Questions
 
JAMB 2020 CBT Software - Download Now, It's Free!
JAMB 2020 CBT Mobile App - Download Now, It's Free!
JAMB 2020 CBT Software Agents - Click Here to Apply