Difference between Political leadership and Military Leadership

Political leadership vs Military Leadership

There are various forms of governance that are found in different parts of the world. Of these, political leadership and military leadership are types that are very contrasting with their own pros and cons. While military leadership is slowly shrinking and losing popularity because of growing dissent and rising aspirations of the people, political leadership is very popular and has taken strong roots in most parts of the world. For those who are not aware of the differences between political leadership and military leadership, here is a brief description with the features of both the forms of governance.

Political leadership

Democracy is one form of governance where military has only one role and that is to defend the territories of a nation and plays no part in governance of the country. Political leadership, comprised of elected representatives, forms the government and is responsible for framing laws and other rules and regulations and the military remains under their control. Even decisions pertaining to a war are taken by the political leadership and the generals have to abide by their judgment. They can only give their valued opinions but the final decision is always taken by the political leadership. This is in essence civilian rule with military, though playing a vital role of defense of the country have no say in the day to day running of administration. It is possible that some people from army may choose to become politicians and even premiers of such a political system but then they perform the duties as a civilian and not as a soldier.

Military leadership

As the name implies, reigns of administration of a country are in the hands of the army and it assumes a wider role than in other countries. It is not only responsible for the defense of the country but also performs the dual role of being a government. To take an example, Burma (Myanmar) is one country where military leadership is at the helm of affairs and Generals of the army are ruling the country. Military in such countries assumes a great significance and controls the civilians, which is just the opposite of the situation in a country where political leadership is in place.

In countries where democratic institutions do not have a strong rooting, situations arise when political leadership is weak. In such a scenario, army Generals nurture the desire of overtaking the government and holding the reigns of the country in their own hands.