interferes with economic
Inhibition of Political and Economic Freedom. Militarization also constrains political and
economic development by interfering with political and economic freedom. For Amartya Sen,
the relationship between freedom and development is straightforward: “Freedoms are not only
the primary ends of development, they are also among its principal means.” Anything that
interferes with political and economic freedom therefore interferes with development.
Militarization interferes with political freedom in a number of ways. The formal institutions of
liberal democracy and informal traditions of democratic civil society have little room to operate
within the authoritarian structure of military and paramilitary organizations. Freestanding,
independent organizations of soldiers that might serve as alternative centers of power and
influence cannot be tolerated. Debate about policies, strategies and tactics is severely
circumscribed. While militaries encourage the positive values of courage, teamwork and
dedication, their culture of obedience and discipline, their formal hierarchical command
structure, and their tradition of rank and privilege are not conducive to either the open
discourse or the freedom of action that is essential to civil democracy.
The concentration of political power is inconsistent with political freedom. Militarization
provides both the physical means to promote the concentration of political power and the
values that justify the use of those means. As political power becomes more concentrated
within a nation, the number of channels available for the expression of alternative political
viewpoints shrinks. With fewer and fewer acceptable outlets, the pressure from those who
dissent builds, and those in power find it increasingly necessary to control them in order to
remain in power. Military force is often the most ready means of repression available. The
more militarized societies become, the more commonplace and routine is this reflexive reaction
to political opposition.
Militarization also aids and abets the concentration of economic power, which is inconsistent
with economic freedom. In societies with vastly unequal distributions of wealth and income, if
the rich do not actually run the government, they certainly exert disproportionate influence on
its policies and actions. They are ordinarily in a position to see to it that the instruments of
control and repression at the disposal of the government ― including military force ― are used
to protect and reinforce their own positions of economic privilege. This may be accomplished
through the unapologetic use of brute force, or through the simple enforcement of “rights” or
laws structured to their advantage.
In militarized, authoritarian societies, it is not difficult for those who wield concentrated supplyside
economic power to covertly encourage or directly arrange for the use of force to intimidate
their workers or their smaller, less influential suppliers or rivals. Special tax breaks and
government subsidies, all too easy to arrange even in liberal democracies, are that much easier
to come by in societies whose inequalities and concentrations of power make the granting of
further privilege to the rich and powerful almost a matter of course. All this greatly distorts
markets, interferes with economic freedom, and impedes economic development.
The inherently undemocratic and hierarchical structure and values of militarized societies also
make them unlikely to support any policy that works to counter the concentration of wealth and
economic power. Neither redistributive tax and income transfer policy nor aggressive antitrust
policy is likely to find a sympathetic hearing. There is little or no incentive for those few who sit
on top of the economic or political pyramid to encourage a wider distribution of either
economic or political largesse, beyond the minimal point that might prove necessary to forestall
riots in the streets.