Queston regarding the GG and the armed forces.

[Redragon]

This is my first post and please forgive if I offend. I am a political science student who has nothing but great admiration for the military. However, I am writing a paper argueing that the position of Governor General is still very important and am currently on a section regarding her role as the Commander in Chief.

I am trying to cement my arguement by using the example of the attempted Spanish coupe of 1981http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23-F and more specifically, how the King effectively crushed the coupe by going on television and ordering the troops back to their barracks. I must admit that I only stumbled across this recently and though have read a few things about it, do not know the full details concerning it.

My question is, in the modern era in which the role of the sovereign, whether it be her Majesty herself or her representative the Governor General, has diminished, if this situation were to happen in Canada (quite obviously it wouldn't), what would your response be. Actually, I would ask you expand a bit to cover a variety of scenarios but essentially, when there is a constitutional and national crisis in which different leaders are contradicting each other, where does your loyalty lay?  Is it with your elected Head of Government (the PM), your Commander in Chief (in which you swore your allegiance) or with your military commander (whom's orders you must follow).

I really tried to think this through and didn't want to post this because I think it is going to offend people asking about their loyalty. I just want you to know that I do have admiration for what you are doing and one of the many who do appreciate. Thank you.

I would just like to add that there are goods and bads for each. The PM has legitimacy because he/she is an elected by your neighbours, your family and your friends but is proned to politics and sometimes failure (being a poly sci student, there are examples from history). They sometimes act with the best interests of themselves and not the country as a whole. The sovereign is unelected but being the most powerful figure in their realms, have no incentive or ambition to attain a higher post and THEORETICALLY, act in the interests of her people. As for the military leader, I'm not quite sure about the advantages and disadvantages.

Once again, thank you.

 

[George Wallace]

I am a bit pressed for time at the moment, but you may start by researching the Oath of Allegiance that Members of the CF swear on when they enroll in the CF.

You may also find some answers in some of the Topics on the GG that have been done here before.  Search page - http://forums.army.ca/forums/index.php?action=search;advanced

 

[pbi]

Redragon.

Interesting question.

First, it's really a very theoretical question: with the exception of Oliver Cromwell's reign in England, there is no history in the English speaking world of military government or even attempted coups.  So, we would be talking about very extreme circumstances, ones that personally I find a bit hard to imagine.

My guess would be that if the military in this country were ever to defy civil authority to the degree we have seen in other nations, the individuals involved would be very unlikely to listen to any constituted authority, simply because (IMHO) their very actions would indicate that either:

a) constituted authority had collapsed or was no longer legitimate; or

b) they really didn't care what constituted authority was in place, since their aim would  be to take power.

IMHO it would be unrealistic to assume that these people would automatically obey the GG, because  they would have rejected one of the basic tenets that underlies our service as professionals: obedience to civil authority, and avoidance of direct political involvement. Just as much as our service is legitimated by our oath, the same system legitimates the duly elected government, whose investiture and legislative acts are blessed by the GG as Head of State.


Second, it can be a tricky business to try to draw direct parallels between events in different countries' history without taking the political cultures into consideration. (I'm a PoliSci guy too...) Spain's political culture, includng the relationship between the House of Bourbon and the Spanish military, as well as the role that the military has played in Spanish political culture, may be very different from Canadian political culture. I would hesitate to be too liberal in saying that thngs might play out the same way here.

Good luck with your paper.

Cheers

 

[Redragon]

Thanks for your help.

 

[Flatlanders]

There is an interesting discussion in the most recent issue of Harpers on the American military and the possibility of a coup d'etat.  The panellists readily dismiss the possibility as being completely antithetical to the principles of the American military.  They are not so dismissive however, of the increasing role that the US military plays in the political process.  Interesting to note the comments from a Judge Advocate in the article.

Having read that and then this post, might I offer the opinion that the role of the GG as C in C lends itself to insulate the CF from being suborned into a political role.  For example, you won't see Stephen Harper reading a speach against the backdrop of 150 soldiers standing and applauding every word, while that sort of window dressing is de rigeur south of the Border.

LOL and now you have me laughing as I imagine Jean Chretien (or Paul Martin or Stephen Harper for that matter) striding away from an aircraft in a flight suit on his way to deliver a speech declaring major combat operations to be at an end.....

Flatlander.

 

[Gunner]

A key period for Canada was the Cuba Missile Crisis in 1962 with RAdm Landymore responding to US direction without Canadian Political concurrence.  Landymore acted as he felt he was obligated to based on treaties and naval agreements.  Diefenbaker had to reign the navy in.  Landymore subsequently played a key role in the Admirals revolt against Liberal cut backs a few years later. 

An interesting period in US history is the military relationship with President Eisenhower.  Particularly his relationship with Bradley and the large scale shift in the defence policy away from a large standing army towards nuclear deterrence inherent in the Air Force and Navy.  The Army felt particularly betrayed at Eisenhower's approach and there are some interesting articles on the subject of army subversion of Eisenhower. Some credit Eisenhower's policy toward the army for thier subsequent defeat/problems fighting a war in Vietnam in the 60/70s and it wasn't rectified until the Reagan build up in the 80s.

Very interesting period in both militaries...

 

[pbi]

Gunner: agreed, but still a very long way from a coup/attempted coup, or physical defiance of the govt. In the Cuba Crisis, the RCN (and the RCAF) were IMHO acting in a vacuum of govt direction, rather than disobeying it. Even in the US case, I would have a hard time thinking that the US Army was seriously considering overthrowing the govt.

Cheers

 

[Old Sweat]

PBI,

It also seems to me that during the Cuban missile crisis Douglas Harkness, the MND at the time, was aware of the action being taken by the RCN and the RCAF and did not attempt to overrule the two services. I am not sure if his support was not more direct that that. (I was a second lieutenant on a course at the RCSA in Shilo at the time, and thus far removed from the corridors of power. It was obvious even to me that there was a dearth of national leadership at the time.)

 

[George Wallace]

I am sure this has been covered here in another thread, if my memory is correct, but it seems to me that it was stated that the Military Leaders during the Cuban Missile Crisis were in a bit of a pickle, but did manage to make the appropriate decisions for the day.  As a member of both NATO and NORAD, they were bound by the Military Treaties and Agreements of those two organizations.  They landed up raising Canada's 'Alert Status' to a point that was higher than what Canada's politicians felt necessary, but not to the point of escalation to which the Americans had raised their 'Alert Status'.  Canada's Troops were on Alert, but in a more subtle way than the Americans.

 

[Gunner]

Gunner: agreed, but still a very long way from a coup/attempted coup, or physical defiance of the govt. In the Cuba Crisis, the RCN (and the RCAF) were IMHO acting in a vacuum of govt direction, rather than disobeying it. Even in the US case, I would have a hard time thinking that the US Army was seriously considering overthrowing the govt.

Cheers

PBI, I agree they are a far cry from what would be described as military coup, however, there are instances of "tension" between our political masters and military leadership.  We had some wonderful discussions on these topics about 5 years ago in my Canadian Defence Policy class.  I believe I may have some of the articles squirreled away in my basement.  I'll see what I can find this weekend.

Cheers