The army, in the most of newly independent countries, intervened as a substitution force in declined administration and absent social forces.
There are, over time, armies that will basically turn to internal security; others will be troublemakers of a coup d’état.
The armies advance towards professionalization. We are increasingly seeing a rise of military leaders in power, as we tend to confuse military leader and the body from which it is issued.
In authoritarian regimes, the dictator, for staying in power, will increase parties involved in safety, from which the emergence of a multitude of a security services and paramilitary elements of security or intelligence services, controlling themselves. The dictatorship actually creates the conditions for fragmentation. If it lasts too long, the power, ensuring its survival by an excess of security, will create, definitively, a false security.
At the time of revolutions, we find out different army models: the professional army; the neo-patrimonial army; the army at the core of unstable policies; clan models; army under authority control; the use of mercenaries as a substitute security, etc.
In some North African countries, we observe, despite all the difficulties, a national resistance.
Mr. Jean-François Daguzan mentions three important elements in the future:
- The risk of "tribalism", that is to say the return, in terms of security and state power, to unicellular forms in which we lose the meaning of national to withdrawal into unicellular structure, that is to say, the tribe or group, in which the army represents power.
- In some countries, we more and more resort to mercenary, replacing the national armies.
- The National, seeming to resist. Face to these crises, countries, having a background, are able to resist, uniting for the national interest and leave.
