In Indonesia, Burma and Thailand the army was the backbone of government. In the Philippines, the army's decision to abandon Marcos helped bring him down.
In Indonesia the army claimed a "dual function" (dwifungsi): defending the country and taking part in politics. Under Suharto, officers held seats in parliament and many posts in government and business.
In Burma the army (Tatmadaw) ruled directly after 1962. Ne Win governed through a single party, the Burma Socialist Programme Party, whose leaders were mostly officers.
In Thailand the army staged coups whenever it felt threatened, including in 1957, 1971, 1976 and 1991. Generals often ruled as prime ministers.
Military power had limits. When the army split, rulers could fall. In February 1986, Marcos's defence minister Juan Ponce Enrile and army vice-chief Fidel Ramos turned against him, and the crowds of People Power protected them.
Military rule rested on force, so it was vulnerable when force was not enough. Thailand's generals had to give way in 1973 and 1992 when mass protests and the king turned against them.
- Dwifungsi
- Indonesian army's dual role.
- Tatmadaw
- Burma's army; ruled from 1962.
- Defections of 1986
- Enrile and Ramos abandon Marcos.
Worked example: Comparing military power
How far did the army secure rulers' power?
- Indonesia: the army backed Suharto for 32 years.
- Burma: the army kept power even after 1988.
- Thailand: coups were common, but protests could force the generals out.
- The Philippines: the army's split ended Marcos's rule.
Watch out for this
Military rulers could rely on force alone.
Force was not enough when the army split or when protests grew too large. Even military rulers needed legitimacy, through performance, elections or royal support.
Check your understanding
What was dwifungsi in Indonesia?
- The army's "dual function" in defence and in politics
- A two-party electoral system
- A policy of sharing power with the PKI