relationship between freedom
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.
