1978
DOI: 10.2307/589233
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Military Conflict--Essays in the Institutional Analysis of War and Peace

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1

Citation Types

0
2
0

Year Published

1993
1993
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 6 publications
(2 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
0
2
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Soldiers were subservient to monarchical authority during colonial rule, which shifted to the president after independence. This resonates with Janowitz's (1975, p. 138) civil‐military relations category of authoritarian‐personal control that are based on personal and traditional power. In effect, it meant that Gayoom as president had personal control of the armed forces as the traditional loyalty of soldiers to the Sultan had moved to the elite ruler, the president.…”
Section: Gayoom's Use Of Political Islammentioning
confidence: 83%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Soldiers were subservient to monarchical authority during colonial rule, which shifted to the president after independence. This resonates with Janowitz's (1975, p. 138) civil‐military relations category of authoritarian‐personal control that are based on personal and traditional power. In effect, it meant that Gayoom as president had personal control of the armed forces as the traditional loyalty of soldiers to the Sultan had moved to the elite ruler, the president.…”
Section: Gayoom's Use Of Political Islammentioning
confidence: 83%
“…Principled and disloyal soldiers were purged through prosecutions and discharges while loyalists were promoted (Bhim, 2020; Rasheed, 2013). The military, instead of democratizing, reverted to Janowitz's (1975) category of authoritarian‐personal control under Yameen.…”
Section: Yameen's “Islam In Danger” Rhetoricmentioning
confidence: 99%