It is unfortunate that for certain democracies, the military willy-nilly becomes an inadvertent piece of the political legitimisation framework and is milked for partisan purposes

Democracies across the globe have seen the sudden rise of the far-Right and the neo-nationalists, who posture muscular stances in a bid to undo the “weaknesses” of the past. From Washington, DC, to Rio de Janeiro, to Budapest, Ankara and Manila, the template is the same: Supposed “strongmen” recklessly pander to the basest instincts. The common playbook for the leadership entails “majoritarianism”, “illiberality” and “discomfort” with constitutional restraints. Profundity of patriotism is replaced by supremacy of unbridled nationalism. The tone and tenor accompanying such leadership is decidedly “unapologetic” and “aggressive.” Another commonality in such nationalistic fervour and rhetoric is the dangerous appropriation of the apolitical military to buttress the political credentials of the “strongman.” Herein, the leadership seeks to dovetail, champion and posit the military as its natural supporter and ambassador. This affords it political legitimacy in the eyes of the citizenry to do many more dangerous unconstitutional acts. The military willy-nilly becomes a partisan accompaniment, a tool and an inadvertent piece of the political legitimisation framework.

Ironically, these adopters of militaristic symbolism are usually not from military background or sensibilities. Take the example of Presidents Donald Trump, Rodrigo Duterte, Recep Tayyip Erdogan and Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orbán. Their formula of nationalism entails interventionist, revisionist and authoritarian agenda that necessitate the subliminal endorsement and usurpation of the military imagery. In all such democracies, these tendencies unsettle the traditional rectitude of the armed forces, which unequivocally disdains topical politics, societal divides and reckless liberties. The required “distance” between the political leadership and the relatively-independent and professional domain of the military gets compromised. The military then stands to assume a partisan slant and preference. Under the garb of “recognising” the military, condescending platitudes are routinely dished with no material benefit for it. The institution is only milked to serve partisan purposes. Given its regimented and disciplined ethos of not speaking up to the national leadership — even when related to personal and career considerations — often, the senior leadership in the military does not do enough to stop the politicisation of this institution. Thus, the armed forces risk compromising their constitutional commitments.

Trump has displayed child-like glee for militaristic trappings such as parades, weaponry, language and self-claimed obsession with “quick action,” ignoring the fact that behind the powerful symbols of the institution resides the purest, noblest and the most constitutionally adherent spirit in action. Combat units do not encourage “divides” as the US military is disproportionately populated by minorities like the Hispanics and African-Americans. This political polarisation would prove to be a natural anathema to the institution. But fragility in the military-political relationship in the US started brewing after most veterans voted in favour of Trump when he seduced them with his uber-nationalistic bluster and bravado. But the military was getting increasingly restless with the interferences; with the hallowed chain and command passing  the buck to the “Generals” on operational failures; and with the institution being dragged into the theatrical politics of Trump.

One defining moment of this tenuous military-civil equation in the US came forth when the President strolled down to a nearby church, accompanied by a posse of his team, and dramatically held aloft a Bible. The photo-op caught the Washington police by surprise as they had to crudely and forcibly push away the peaceful demonstrators. The Bishop of the Episcopal Diocese of Washington was “outraged” at the use of the church as a political stage. Even worse was the sight of the senior most US military General Mark A Milley in combat fatigues, forming the backdrop of that overtly dramatised “moment” and he being used as a willing prop.

Yet again, willingly or unwillingly, Trump had drawn the avowedly apolitical institution into extremely politically-loaded “moment.” The optics also inadvertently signalled the institution’s alignment on the way security was being handled and worse, it sought to be further handled by invoking the military. What followed next was an unequivocal and bipartisan roast of the apparent conduct of the top General. The military’s cherished political abstention was visibly compromised — all eyes turned on Gen Milley but not much was expected as Trump has routinely interfered, fired and bulldozed opposition.

But Gen Milley demonstrated the highest levels of military courage, uprightness and morality when he apologised for the optics, knowingly earned  presidential ire and risked getting fired. Milley unambiguously said, “I should not have been there” and that “my presence in that moment and in that environment created a perception of the military involved in domestic politics.” In one sweep, Milley restored the larger dignity of the regrettable situation, the institution and the nation. Gen Milley’s apology does not show him in  weak light. On the contrary, both he and the institution have been strengthened by reiterating the supremacy of the US Constitution as opposed to the vanity and whims of any individual — even if he happens to be the Commander-in-Chief. Gen Milley salvaged the situation from getting dangerously and irreparably undermined. This is especially applicable for the military, which holds the coercive instruments of sovereign power. Gen Miley’s extraordinary public apology also included a very telling and direct comment when he told his troops to “defend the Constitution” — the distinction between the President and the Constitution was unmistakable.

Gen Milley may join the revolving door of the White House administration that has seen the fired backs of some of the most decorated, valourised and respected veterans. Ironically, veteran affairs and the military were signature Trump issues in his politics but the treatment meted out to the institution, its traditions and values will make the most Republican Party supporting veterans think twice. The humility in Mark Milley’s words, “As a commissioned uniformed officer, it was a mistake that I have learned from, and I sincerely hope we all can learn from it” is both rare and thoroughly inspirational.

(The writer, a military veteran, is a former Lt Governor of Andaman & Nicobar Islands)