By "manifestation," are you asking for examples, and if so, are you referring primarily to the United States or asking more broadly?
Assuming these are the cases, two examples come to mind:
(1) During the Korean War, President Truman removed General Douglass MacArthur from his role as a Supreme Commander of Allied Powers (SCAP) because MacArthur wanted to prosecute a war inside China that Truman opposed.
MacArthur was an American hero of enormous popularity -- he had accepted the Japanese surrender on the deck of the Missouri just a few years earlier -- and this action took place during time of war, both factors that made Truman's decision politically difficult and that might have fueled MacArthur's power base had he refused to accept his removal. He did not.
(2) Two weeks ago, President Obama removed General Stanley McCrystal from his role as commander of American forces in Afghanistan because McCrystal and his staff went on record expressing no confidence in the civilian leadership of the military, including the President himself.
McCrystal was by all regards an effective military commander and again, this action took place during time of war. Despite a toxic political climate, however, the opposition party completely supported the President's decision to remove McCrystal, underlining the extent to which civilian control trumped politics.
Refers to the supremacy of elected civilian public officials over the military. The elected President is the Commander in Chief and ONLY THE CONGRESS CAN DECLARE WAR.
Civilian supremacy over the military is manifested through several key mechanisms, including the establishment of a civilian-led government that makes defense policy decisions, legislative oversight of military budgets and operations, and the appointment of civilian officials to top defense positions. Additionally, civilian control is reinforced by constitutional provisions that delineate the roles and powers of military and civilian authorities. This dynamic ensures that military actions align with democratic values and the will of the populace, thereby preventing military overreach or influence in political affairs.
-The armed forces of the Philippines (AFP) being the protector of the people and the state. -The president of the Republic of the Philippine declared as a civilian therefore occupies the highest position in the Armed Forces of the Philippines as its commander in chief. -The soldiers and officers of the AFP swear to uphold and defend the constitution duly represented by the Filipino people. -The member of the armed forces is deemed to manifest professionalism in the service and the strengthening of the patriotism and nationalism with respect of the human rights of every Filipino.
Claude Emerson Welch has written: 'Civilian control of the military' -- subject(s): Civil supremacy over the military, Politics and government 'Soldier and state in Africa: a comparative analysis of military intervention and political change' -- subject(s): Political activity, Armed Forces 'Civilian control of the military' -- subject(s): Politics and government, Civil supremacy over the military 'Military rule and the imperatives of democracy' -- subject(s): Politics and government, Civil supremacy over the military 'Civilizan control of the military' -- subject(s): Civil supremacy over the military 'Anatomy of rebellion' -- subject(s): Case studies, Violence, Revolutions, Peasant uprisings 'Political modernization' -- subject(s): Political science, Social change, Addresses, essays, lectures
Robert Previdi has written: 'Civilian control versus military rule' -- subject(s): Civil supremacy over the military, Civil-military relations, Reorganization, United States, United States. Dept. of Defense
Because military in Philippines is the protector of the people and the state.
There are not many advantages of a military government over a civilian government. One thing that may be considered an advantage is that a military government is always ready to defend its country.
hell no
Marshall Law
Martial Law .
Yes. The commander in chief of the US military is a civilian, and will always be in ultimate control of the military. This is one of the major tenants of the construct the founders put in place to guard against the military seizing power.
No, a four-star army general does not have authority over civilian police. Civilian law enforcement agencies operate under local, state, or federal government authority and are independent from military command. In the United States, for example, the Posse Comitatus Act restricts the use of the military in domestic law enforcement, ensuring civilian control over police matters. However, in certain situations, such as national emergencies, the military may provide support to civilian authorities, but that does not equate to direct command.