One of the questions that keep haunting international relations scholars is whether a military-led regime can be challenging in terms of policy, development and accountability. An answer to this question is likely to be complex. On the one hand, military-led regimes have always been a cause of policy and accountability concerns. The latter half of the 20th century witnessed the dramatic transformation of nation-states and the subsequent dissolution of power elites, military-led regimes remained an example of closed elite hierarchies (Berger & Weber, 2009). Such regimes would be focused mostly on the issues of power concentration and order maintenance, rather that economic development, accountability or redistribution policies through public institutions (Berger & Weber, 2009).
These challenges might have far-reaching repercussions for the social, economic and policy development in military-led countries. When Milanovic (2005) talks of the importance of foreign aid to support development in the least-developed countries, chances are high that the way the aid is distributed and used will be concealed from the eyes of the global community due to poor accountability and lack of financial insight. The case of the Arab Spring in Egypt also points to the judiciary and criminal justice repercussions of poor accountability in military-led regimes (Aziz, 2017).
However, there is an opposite side of the issue. According to Collier (2004), the presence of a military force is particularly relevant in post-conflict countries and situations. Therefore, a military-led regime might become a necessity rather than tragedy for developing countries. If that is the case, accountability and transparency will need to be addressed to avoid the aforementioned repercussions and ensure that the presence of the military does not compromise economic development, policies, and effective redistribution of monies that often arrive from other, more developed and advanced world countries.
The relationship between development and conflict is bidirectional. That is, the lack of development can predispose countries to the risks of conflicts (Collier, 2004). Simultaneously, conflicts represent a serious impediment to development and growth in any country – this is what Collier (2004) describes as “development in reverse”. Civil conflicts undermine the stability of the existing institutions. Of course, lack of development by itself may not be a source of conflict powerful enough to lead to civil clashes. Lack of effective state institutions can exacerbate the existing conflicts, particularly when issues related to natural resources are involved (Collier, 2004). When a poor country cannot make effective use of its natural resources, it may also fall into a civil conflict (Collier, 2004). Each conflict situation is unique, but it is obvious that during civil conflict even minimum development goals cannot be achieved; nor can countries overcome the legacy of the social and economic inequities that become even more deeply embedded into their daily realities.
The main lesson to learn here is that the opportunities of development can be leveraged to prevent conflicts from occurring. According to Collier (2004), the international community must foster economic growth in countries that are prone to civil conflicts. When the average levels of income double, the risks of civil conflicts decrease by half (Collier, 2004). Unfortunately, the existing instruments for boosting economic development in conflict-prone countries are limited. Foreign aid has been a popular model for managing the risks of conflict in underdeveloped countries, but when such countries are military-led, poor accountability and lack of policies may actually diminish the utility of these financial inflows (Berger & Weber, 2009). Therefore, development should be leveraged in ways that revitalize the inner resources and potentials of a conflict-prone country while ensuring that sufficient financial and natural resources are in place to minimize the risks of economic and social disagreements.
Instability is rightly considered as one of the principal factors hindering growth and development. However, it is not the only factor channeling conflicts in the developing world. In fact, instability may come from a variety of sources, and the ways in which it predisposes countries to the risks of conflicts will also vary.
On the one hand, it is instability that is related to the history of conflicts rather than conflicts themselves. According to Collier (2004), countries that have had experience being involved in civil conflicts face higher risks of similar conflicts in the future. The risks of such conflicts are the highest in the first decade after a civil war is over (Collier, 2004). Unfortunately, dozens of countries that have managed to overcome their civil tensions fall back to conflicts within the next 10 years (Collier, 2004).
On the other hand, conflicts may arise due to the fact that countries have failed to utilize the existing opportunities for reform and development. Here, the absence of robust national and economic institutions, lack of political will, poor accountability, or restrictions imposed by other countries in terms of trade and development may become new channels fueling the likelihood of future conflicts (Milanovic, 2005). Such unsuccessful countries may also experience barriers to attracting and using foreign investments to advance their economic and social goals (Milanovic, 2005). All in all, numerous factors and variables come together to shape an environment of change or prevent countries from pursuing ambitious economic objectives. Some countries may spend decades trying to disentangle the roots and complexities surrounding civil conflicts. Some others may not be in the best position to leverage their resources and attract additional ones trying to reduce the scope of instability. Each case should be considered individually while presenting a lesson for other countries.
