Democratization and the Philippine military: A comparison of the approaches used by the Aquino and Ramos administrations in re-imposing civilian supremacy

In building a democratic society, subordinating the military to elected civilian leaders is necessary. Civilian supremacy entails that elected leaders must be able to exercise power without military interference. The range of measures crucial for civilian supremacy include: removing the military from economic and political roles; enhancing professionalism; joint civilian and military decision making in security and defense issues; indoctrinating the military with a role orientation compatible with democracy; and establishing mechanisms of civilian control.; This study contrasts the approaches of two democratic governments in the Philippines under Corazon Aquino (1986--1992) and Fidel Ramos (1992--1998) in reimposing civilian supremacy. Using government reports, laws, legislative hearings, extensive interviews, budget and survey studies, the initiatives of each administration are discussed and their level of success evaluated.; The Aquino government shifted from a confrontational to an accommodationist stance towards the military. It legally barred the military from political posts, strengthened the defense department, established congressional and judicial oversight on military performance, and took direct control of the budget. The Ramos administration, while continuing the professionalization measures of the Aquino government, addressed the military's material welfare. The military was given broad amnesty and assigned multiple tasks including internal security, external defense, nation building, and disaster relief. Many ex-military officers were also appointed into government posts.; The Aquino government was less successful in re-imposing civilian supremacy given the legacies of factionalism, the military's politicized attitude, and the low level of trust between civilian and military leaders. The Ramos administration was more successful in establishing civilian control given the improved economic condition and reduced insurgent threat. The civilian and military leadership were both committed to a professional and non-interventionist military. Congress also became more assertive in security and defense areas.; The two democratic governments were able to subordinate the military in many areas without contestation, but with concessions for a military role in counterinsurgency policy making. The military conceded to human rights restrictions and transparency in its conduct. Compromises were possible because civilian demands for accountability in counterinsurgency operations dovetailed with the military's professional concerns and institutional prestige.