1. Why do most political sciences have a negative view of military rule in the LDCs? Under what circumstances, if any, might military government be a good thing for the country?
2. Discuss why you think the Armed Forces of developed countries such as the United States or Canada does not attempt military coups.
3. Where have military regimes successfully developed Third World economies and where have they failed to do so? What seems to account for the differences?
I am assuming that your instructor is referring to less developed countries with the use of the acronym LDC (less developed countries). Chances are the first point is already answered in your class notes or course readings. One place to start with this point would be to look at the traditional categorization of first, second and third world. These are largely determined by form of government and economic structure. Usually examples of countries are given as well which might help you answer the third question. It might be helpful for you to compare this definition with the more current ones developed by I. Wallerstein - core, periphery and semi-periphery. Part of the changes are connected to the impact of globalization, which is simply capitalism in its newest form.
One instance where military rule is preferable to civilian rule is during a state of transition after war, but this is usually the only circumstance and the goal is usually to have the military maintain basic social control while a new government is being ...
A brief discussion of military and civilian government in developing nations.