This is a multination study of military disobedience in the face of presidential orders to suppress civilian uprisings. Rather than coercively manipulating the government or seizing power themselves, these insubordinate armies prefer to remain quartered. To determine why, the authors draw on rational, ideational, and structural analytical perspectives on military behavior. The study deploys a qualitative case study method of analysis, identifying seven positive cases (disobedience) and then contrasting those with three negative cases (obedience) to discern whether there is a collection of causal agents that can discriminate between these sets. It finds that disobedience grows out of material grievances, stronger affiliation with public as opposed to government interests, rejection of internal public order roles, illegalities, and splits within the services.
AbrahammsonB. (1972). Military professionalization and political power. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
2.
BaranyZ. (2011). The role of the military. Journal of Democracy, 22(4), 24-35.
3.
BinnendijkA.MarovicI. (2006). Power and persuasion: Nonviolent strategies to influence state security forces in Serbia (2000) and Ukraine (2004). Communist and Post-Communist Studies, 39(3), 411-429.
4.
British Broadcasting Corporation. (2000, March11). Defence minister regrets delay in military modernization. BBC summary of world broadcasts. London, UK: Author.
5.
Central Intelligence Agency. (2011). World Factbook: Bahrain. Washington, D.C.: Office of Public Affairs, Central Intelligence Agency; Stockholm Peace Research Institute, The SIPRI Military Data Base, 2012. Retrieved at: http://milexdata.sipri.org/result.php; US Department of State. (2011). Background Note: Bahrain. from http://www.state.gov/r/pa/ei/bgn/26414.htm
6.
CockburnP. (2011, March16). Troops Enter Bahrain as Martial Law Begins. Belfast Telegraph. p. 20.
D’AnieriP.KravchukR.KuzioT. (1999). Politics and society in Ukraine. Boulder, CO: Westview.
11.
DarchiashviliD. (2005). Georgian Defense Policy and Military Reform. In LegvoldB. C. A. R. (Ed.), Statehood and security: Georgia after the rose revolution (pp. 117-152). London, UK: MIT Press.
12.
DeschM. (1999). Civilian Control of the Military: The Changing Security Environment. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
GotowickiS. H. (1997). The role of the Egyptian military in domestic society. Washington, DC: Institute of National Strategic Studies, National Defense University.
JansenM. (2011, February12, p.12). People power left army with no option. Irish Times.
31.
JaskoskiM. (2012). The Ecuadorian army: Neglecting a porous border while policing the interior. Latin American Politics and Society, 54(1), 127-157.
32.
LeeT. (2005). Military Cohesion and Regime Maintenance: Explaining the Role of the Military in 1989 China and 1998 Indonesia. Armed Forces & Society32(10), 80-104.
33.
LeeT. (2009). The armed forces and transitions from authoritarian rule: Explaining the role of the military in 1986 Philippines and 1998 Indonesia. Comparative Political Studies, 42(5), 640-669.
LevitskyS.WayL. (2010).Competitive Authoritarianism: Hybrid Regimes After the Cold War. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
36.
LichbachM.ZuckermanA. eds. (1997). Comparative Politics: Rationality, Culture and Structure. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
37.
ManiK. (2011). Military entrepreneurs: Patterns in Latin America. Latin American Politics and Society, 53(3), 25-55.
38.
MayorgaR.MorónR. B. (2004). La Cuestión Militar en Cuestión [The Military Issue in Question]. La Paz, Bolivia: CEBEM.
39.
NordenD. (1995). Between coups and consolidation: Military rebellion in Argentina. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press.
40.
NordlingerE. (1977). Soldiers in politics: Military coups and governments. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
41.
O’DonnellG. (1973). Modernization and Bureaucratic Authoritarianism: Studies in South American Politics. Berkeley: Institute for International Studies.
42.
PerlmutterA. (1977). The military and politics in modern times. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
43.
Pion-BerlinD. (1997). Through corridors of power: Institutions and civil–military relations in Argentina. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.
44.
Pion-BerlinD.TrinkunasH. (2010). Civilian Praetorianism and Military Shirking During Constitutional Crises in Latin America, Comparative Politics42(4), 395-416.
45.
Republic of Argentina. (1988). Ley de Defensa Nacional (National Defense Law). Buenos Aires: Diario Sesiones, p. 2992.
RaginC. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley: University of California Press.
48.
RaginC. (2000). Fuzzy-Set Social Science. Chicago: University of Chicago Press; SkocpolT., ed. (1984). Vision and Method in Historical Sociology. New York: Cambridge University Press.
49.
SandersD. (2008). Ukraine’s military reform: Building a paradigm army. Journal of Slavic Military Studies, 21(4), 599.
50.
SanfordG. (2000, October9, p.14). Anti-Milosevic revolt was planned in army. Irish Times.
51.
SerraN. (2010). The Military Transition: Democratic Reform of the Armed Forces. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
TaylorB. (2003). Politics and the Russian Army: Civil-Military Relations, 1689-2000. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
55.
ThompsonW. R. (1973). The Grievances of Military Coup-Makers. Beverly Hills: Sage Publications.
56.
WilsonA. (2005). Ukraine’s Orange Revolution. Yale University Press: New Haven, p.135.
57.
WaldmanP. (1995, June14). Strife in Bahrain Focuses Attention on Persian Gulf Recent Street Riots Have Been Met by the Ruling Family with Armies of Foreign Mercenaries. The Globe and Mail.
58.
YorkS. (2007). Orange revolution. New York, NY: Cinema Guild.
