civilian is better than military government

Debate Motion: A Civilian Government is more preferable than a Military GovernmentStance: ConBoP: A Military Government is not preferable to a Civilian GovernmentBefore I lunge into my arguments, I would like to define some terms:1. Civilian Government: A government that is installed and supported by the majority of the population.2. Military Government: A government that is supported and dominated by the military. A military government does not necessarily need nation-wide dissent; an example, a good one indeed, of a military government was under Gen. Prem Tinusolonda in Thailand during the 1980s; this was considered a military government, yet his government had widespread support.With these terms defined, we are then able to define what this debate is not. This debate is not a debate over the best form of government; it is certain that a military government does have its pros and cons. This debate will be based purely on the comparison and contrasting of civilian and military governments.Contention One: Military governments are more effective Military Governments are effective because they often dismiss dissent. Unlike democracy, or a normal civilian government, where ideas get thrown around as if they were balls in a baseball game, a military government can control and hold power. A unit in the military is disciplined; that unit can get things done if wanted to. Nothing is “impossible” in with a strong fist; a military government can do this to a country too. Prussia is an example of this; the Germanic states were divided due to religion. However, it was often said that “The Prussian Army possessed a State”[1] This was true to a point. The Prussian Army controlled was the source of many of the King’s advisors, and in times where the apparently seemed to be unable to make decisions for himself, the army took control. The Prussian Army was highly aristocratic and had pride in everything that they did; all Prussian Government Officials wore armed force uniforms and had army swords to show their status. [2] The Prussian Army, albeit highly conservative, had the support of many liberals, seeing them as the savior and the state that would unite the Germanic states (Bavaria, Wurttemberg etc). [3] They were not wrong; if the military government of Prussia were replaced with a civilian led one, then in no way would they have won and held back the Russian and Austrian Invasions during the Seven Years War. This proves two things; one, a military government is capable of creating a strong, powerful state which controls the subjects of the state with an iron fist, while secondly, they are able to create unity within the people via intense patriotism by uniting them against one enemy in times of attack.In conclusion:P1. All military governments have the power and the will to carry out a taskP2. All civilian governments (or at least most) have a weaker will to carry out a taskC1. A Military Government is more efficient than a Civilian GovernmentContention Two: Military Government is more stable To look at how an army would organize a country, we must look at organization within the army. “Strength through discipline” is definitely one of its many main ideas; a military unit is disciplined in a way that a country isn’t, but should be. When orders are given within the military, that order is obliged by. When an order is given in society, however, that order is sometimes defied. However, when the military takes control of a country, it imposes on strict order. This order cannot be defied, nor can it be ignored. This order must be followed; although this turns the country, the state or the community into a straight up authoritarian community, “strength through discipline” is definitely preferable to country that fell through to military rule. By creating a more lawful and safe community, the people will be able to sustain the prosperous opportunity that this has created. An unstable government is not preferred if a more stable governing method is wanted; the people want and need tranquility and stability for the good of themselves, their family, and the community. This is because stability creates economic prosperity, social tranquility and law and order. Let us take the example of General Prem Tinusolonda for example; the Thai General who took over from a coup promoted and successfully created high economic growth in Thailand, with a stable development rate of 8-12% per year [4]. This development went on until the Asian Financial Crisis of 1997; the massive development rate was a part of the new tranquility and stability that Thailand had enjoyed. Under the Prem Regime, no one dared to speak out against him, which promoted stability. As foreign investors saw more chances of this new nation, they quickly took it and developed Thailand into what it is now. Prem installed discipline and unity to the Thai nation, and in return, the nation was given economic prosperity because of its stability (as foreign investors trusted the government more to destroy political instability). Therefore, we can conclude that:P1. All armies adopt the “strength through discipline” part of the Machiavellian DoctrineP2. All army commanders have this mentality in and out of the militaryC1. The military rules with an iron fist, creating stabilityContention Three: A Civilian Government will submit to external control A civilian government will submit to the demands of external factions; things like elite influence, foreign influence and corruption. I am not saying here that soldiers are not immune to corruption; however, it would seem more logical to believe that soldiers are less prone to corruption than politicians because they are more disciplined in action. A military junta, apart from creating stability and have more power in doing things, can also preserve the integrity and independence of one nation. This is because a civilian government is under the influence of many foreign factors; they do not want to preserve the integrity and the prosperity of the nation and in no ways think about the people before enacting. They think about the effects that this would have on the international community; for example, the Thai Prime Minister should have attacked Cambodia and disregarded the Preah Vihear decision by the ICJ (in 2008) but he decided to ignore it and accept it. A military government never fails to defend national integrity; during the Seven Years War, the Prussian Government was hopelessly outnumbered, yet the military led government under King Frederick fought them off valiantly. Many military governments have done the same; soldiers know nothing else but to serve their nation valiantly. The interest of a soldier is the same as his nation; a soldier is willing to die for it. Therefore, we can conclude that:P1. All Soldiers are valiant, patriotic and honorable peopleP2. Many soldiers will protect their nations till death C1. A military regime will sustain the pride and intergrity of the nationCitations:[1] http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org...[2] http://en.wikipedia.org...[3] The Politics of the Prussian Army: 1640 – 1945 (retrieved from Wikipedia)[4] http://en.wikipedia.org...