Dangerous Deference: What the British Public Think about Civil-Military Relations

Accepted norms of democratic civil-military relations aver, regarding the use of force, that military officers may not substitute civilians’ judgement with their own and that civilians should not follow their guidance blindly. These theories often rest on the presumption that three critical actors—government, armed forces, and the public—adhere to these norms. Democracy suffers if voters are unduly deferential to military leaders and if their elected representatives follow suit. Existing research has questioned Americans’ commitment to democratic civil-military relations, but we know little about Britons’ views. A popular stereotype portrays Americans as unique among Western democracies in their veneration of the military, yet our novel survey data show that the British public's attitudes toward civil-military relations are strikingly—and concerningly—similar. Many British respondents appear to believe that civilian policy makers should defer to the military, even on fundamental questions regarding decisions over whether to use force, and many are comfortable with military officers publicly advocating for their preferred policies. As the new Labour government has recently increased the strategic authority of the UK's most senior military officers, these findings have pressing implications for policy. Elected civilians and military leaders alike must reaffirm civilian primacy, rebuild trust in civilian government, and educate the public on a healthily democratic civil-military compact.