Difference Between Political Leadership and Military Leadership
There are different forms of government that are found in different parts of the world. Of these, the political and military leadership are very contrasting types with their own pros and cons. While the military leadership is slowly becoming less and less popular and also getting obsoletey because of the growing protest and decreasing esteem and popularity, political leadership is very popular and has taken strong root in most parts of the world. For those who are not aware of the differences between the political and military leadership, here is a brief description of the characteristics of both forms of government.
Political leadership
Democracy is a form of government where the military plays just one role and it is to look after the territory of a nation and has no role in governing the country. Political leadership, including elected officials, forms the government and is responsible to oversee the laws and other rules and regulations and the military remains in their control. Even the decisions related to war are made by the political leadership and the generals must respect their decision. They can only give their opinions but the final decision is always taken by the political leadership. It is essentially civilian rule with the military, and military has no role in the administration and running of daily administration though they are the core of the security of a nation. It is possible that some of the military person may want to become politicians but then they perform duties as a civilian and not as a soldier.
Military leadership
As the name implies, the reigns of administration of a country are in the hands of the army and it assumes a larger role than in other countries. It is not only responsible for national defense but also performs the dual role of being a government. As an example, Burma (Myanmar) is a country where the military leadership is at the helm of affairs and army generals are running the country and taking care of administration. The military in these countries assume great significance and control the civilians, which is just the opposite of the situation in a country where political leadership is in place.
In case of the countries that could not provide a strong growth platform to institutions working on democratic principles, many a times certain situations crop up when the political leadership is weak. In such a scenario, the army generals take the reigns of the country in their own hands.