This scene from the re-imagined Battlestar Galactica pilot – the first in which Commander Adama and President Roslin meet – is emblematic of three politically significant conversations underpinning the series. First, what is the appropriate role of the military with respect to the society it presumably exists to serve? Second, who decides? Third, what are the means by which that role is to be executed? All these conversations map broadly onto what Peter Feaver has called the “civil-military problematique;” and they cut across an emerging conceptual distinction in security studies between national and human security.
A graduate student and I are currently working on a paper that explores how those conversations play out over the course of BSG and examines how the show’s messaging is positioned in current debates about both civil-military relations and human security. In the paper, we elaborate on each of the three tensions exemplified by the initial conversation between Roslin and Adama in the pilot episode, and tie it to civ-mil/human security debates.
First, we examine the epistemological referent of “security” in the series. At the start of the series, Commander Adama assumes a territorialized national security frame – he sees his role as defending the Colonies themselves by pursuing and engaging ‘the enemy’ – while Roslin argues the role of the military is to protect civilians and proposes a militarized humanitarianism on behalf of a diasporic human collective. Although the distinction between military and human security is a constant tension in the show, we argue that the series progresses in the direction of a human security frame. But we also show how the series challenges the concept of human security.
Second, we examine the tension between civilian and military authority as depicted in the series. An abiding thread of analysis in civil-military relations is what level of civilian control over the military and military influence over civilian society is appropriate in a given society. The series begins with the two on somewhat equal footing in their respective spheres – similar to what Huntington referred to as “objective civilian control” – but the show progresses toward greater civilian supremacy overall, as well as fusing the distinction between the two, trends more associated with Janowitz. The civilianization of the military throughout the series is reflected in the destabilization of gender hierarchies as the show progresses, and culminates in complete debellicization in the final episode.
Finally, we examine representations of the limits placed on the role of the military in security, and the means by which it can carry out security measures. The show is unflinchingly brutal at times, forcing the viewer to confront the notion that good people can do terrible things. Nonetheless, BSG presents and defends an argument that military force can only be legitimate and therefore effective if wielded with due respect for the rule of law and human rights. This narrative has significant resonance with current policy debates over the role of the military in human security, in the US and abroad; and the show embodies an important tension between civilians and military personnel in the war on terror on the extent to which the state and/or military have the nation’s best interests at heart.
So that’s the paper in a nutshell. Here’s the bleg. We’ve been asked by the editor of the volume for which this is a contribution to ground the meta-analysis more closely in real-world political events, rather than simply academic literature. Help! There are obviously analogues with rule of law in the war on terror, and with the supposed civil-military crisis of which various commentators have been writing in recent years. But we’d also like to cast a broad net: as we develop this further, I am soliciting further thoughts from readers. How might the political debates from BSG be further mapped onto / connected to real-world civil-military relations? Reply below to earn an acknowledgement in our final version.
Wow interesting topic bsg is a much loved show of mine
The producers said many times in interview that while the tension between civil & military provided great material ultimately civilian supremacy would prevail
This is in stark contrast to the original ..
In practical international history we have three excellent examples in south Asia . In India 1970s indies Gandhi declared a unpopular state of emergency and despite. Suggestions war hero mankenshaw did not topple the govt in Pakistan the military did intervene promising to hold elections that only happened a decade later. In Bangladesh political polarisation contributed to a caretaker govt midwifed by the military.
Ayesha Jalals books detail the differing paths similar countries took
I believe when Field Marshal Sam Manekshaw was confronted by Indira Gandhi (whom he affectionately called “sweetie”) about the coup rumors, he asked if she was seeking his resignation on grounds of mental instability.
The Indian situation however is not quite comparable to the Adama-Roslin dialog despite the gendered relationship between the PM and FM. The main reason is that the unquestioned supremacy of civilian control had long been established by Nehru and the tradition had been sustained even after a punishing defeat to China in 1962. While Indira declared Emergency law in 1975, it is worth noting that she received a great deal of credit for liberating Bangladesh a few years earlier. Hence, she was no neophyte politician like the President Roslin character.
The Pakistani situation in the early years of the state (while closer to the BSG scenario of an embattled dominion/republic fighting for survival) is also problematic because civilian deference to the military began almost immediately upon independence and arguably effective civilian control was ceded with the appointment of Gen. Ayub Khan as C-i-C in 1951.
Whether the actions of the professional South Asian armies in maintaining security over unsettled, minority dominated areas demonstrates the BSG argument that “… military force can only be legitimate and therefore effective if wielded with due respect for the rule of law and human rights,” is really debatable.
Yes & no to the Pakistan comparison the Pakistan military has on it’s own attempted to quell insurgencies without public support e.g
Karachi and Swat. The common factor is it failed because it operated in a political vacuum
The problems with any comparisons is the institutional factors + the level if the crisis . I doubt anything will compare to what happened to the BSG pilot !! The broader question is why do some intervene in civilian affairs and others not ?
Pakistan & Bangladesh inherited the same British parliamentary system in the end?
Other interesting examples are of course Turkey.
Ultimately the question posed is moral ..there is no doubt that application of power sanctioned with political legitimacy is more effective then power on it’s own.
@Zakksez, I was only comparing the relative balance of institutional strength at the outset, which is why I don’t think the Indian or Pakistani cases work well. You’re right that the level of the existential crisis in BSG is unparalleled, but I think states like Pakistan and Israel felt an existential crisis from the beginning.
I am skeptical of your last claim or at least I think it is debatable. While popular political legitimacy is desirable for the exercise of power in restive areas, the South Asian cases from Tibet, Kashmir, NE India, Baluchistan, to what was once known as Afghan Turkestan tend to show that a large military, brutal force (unfortunately), and infrastructural integration are often sufficient to stabilize and pacify (despite periodic spasms of violence). Without foreign support for insurgents, most of these areas would have long since been integrated into the dominant state. (This is not to say that I condone any of these actions).
My initial argument was contrasting different approaches in dealing with the military, while not perfect I believe Turkey and all 3 major countries in the sub-continent are useful contrasts. India experienced an existential crisis in the 1962 Indo china war? why did the Pak army toppled Bhuttos gov in 1977? and why didn’t the Bangladesh Army intervene further when it created the transition govt? I suspect a lot has to do with ideological borders versus actual borders.
To answer your last comment..i guess it depends on how we define effective or efficient use of force. Using BSG as a model the Cylons applied force overwhelmingly using “a bazooka to swat a fly”
when you have numerical superiority of 5 or 10:1 then one can simply overwhelm the other..but the distinction between stabilisation and peace is also important.
I agree about foreign support playing a crucial role but only being one of many factors (without French support the US would not exist as a nation now)
Final bit : my own take on BSG is based on several points an early line “sooner or later one cant escape from the things one has done” has obvious 9-11 references on monsters one creates, the other is the cyberpunk influence..who says humans have the right to exist? What do we do to prove we are any good? , another line is all this has happened before and will happen again (taken from peter Pan), Baltar being a Gollum like figure in the series..character who appears irredeemable and no benefit to anyone except himself except he is the most important charcater of the show and Cavils line “I’m a machine! And I can know much more! I can experience so much more.” reflects the rage of the flawed angel.
Oh yes and lets not forget its most important lesson..if you want to make God laugh..just tell him your plans
Not living in N. America, I’ve never seen the show, but the description of the problem doesn’t seem to require it either. What about looking at the ambivalent role of Turkey’s military? On the one hand, Turkey is bound by NATO to keep the military under democratic civilian control, but, on the other hand, the military has also traditionally seen itself as the guarantor of Turkey’s secular democratic system. I.e. the military maintains the democracy that controls it. You’ll also be able to find a number of crises that have resulted from this with international and domestic relevance.
BTW: “the notion that good people can do terrible things.” makes no sense. How do you identify a person’s goodness without reference to her/his actions? A good person is a person who does good things; a person who does bad things is bad. A good person might be stuck having to do some unpalatable things (e.g. screw N. Korean citizens with sanctions to contain their maniac leader and prevent still greater suffering), but those acts still have to be ‘good’ to preserve the actor’s goodness. If you declare people good by fiat, regardless of what they do, then you will easily become an apologist for all kinds of heinousness and cruelty.
One thing you might want to think about is the parallel changes within Cylon power structures; the initial Cylon ruling elite could be represented as uber-neocons, overseeing a tightly integrated (albeit hierarchical) militaristic regime engaging in a pre-emptive strike to guarantee their own security. The civil / military split did not exist for them. The changes of at least some of their leadership and their subsequent civil war is perhaps a commentary on how even (some) neo cons can potentially be transformed to a different (human/cylon security) view in part by having the cylon-ness of the other revealed to them (through the final five story line). Perhaps there are some parallels to contemporary events that can be drawn from this perspective as well.
@Rob: I like the idea of Neocons as Cylons. But do the Neocons seek to guarantee the security of the US? I think at least in Southwest Asia they work primarily to enhance the security of a client state, Israel, even when it hazards the security, wastes the treasure, and costs the lives of Americans. If their main concern was to protect the security of the US, they could advocate a wider range of policy options including severing ties with the client regime.
Hi Vikash – yep, there are certainly limits to the analogy; however their justifications of a pre-emptive strike, their status as an elite ruling class, with easily mobilizable populations (the foot soldier cylons) and on a brighter note, the transformation of some of this elite, reconciliation with humans (and indeed the blurring of the human / cylon boundary) and final emancipation and liberation of their foot soldiers certainly provide material for contemporary comparisons….
Egypt may be coming through for you: https://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/11/world/middleeast/11egypt.html
I’d say thats right…