View article

Today, in view of the rising trends in global threats, and in both domestic and international requests for military support in areas such as PSO, the variables of control and effectiveness must be analysed in tandem. This is the case for at least three reasons: First, we find from our research that the effectiveness of the military, and other security actors, is increasingly recognized by civilian leaders and the general public as important to national security; second, these two variables, as we will see in some of the case studies, may be in competition with one another; and third, they overlap to some degree, in terms of their institutional requirements. I will discuss these requirements in the case studies later in this chapter. The data for the case studies are drawn from a decade of extensive research, rounded out with in-country interviews conducted by myself and my in Argentina, Mongolia, Portugal and Romania, where one or more of us spent at least a week between early and mid-2010.

Based on our research, I define what is necessary, if not sufficient, to achieve both control and effectiveness. Control over armed forces comprises three elements: civilian authority over institutional control mechanisms, normalized oversight, and the inculcation of professional norms through professional military education. Control must be grounded in and exercised through institutions that range from organic laws that empower the civilian leadership, to civilian-led organizations with professional staffs, such as a ministry of defence–and include one or more committees in the legislature that deal with policies and budgets, and a well-defined chain of authority for civilians to …