Australian Civil-Military Relations: Distinct Cultural and Constitutional Foundations

Abstract

<p><i>The truth is that the civil-military relationship in a democracy is almost invariably difficult, setting up as it does opposing values, powerful institutions with great resources, and inevitable tensions between military professionals and statesmen.</i> ¹ </p><p><i>Eliot Cohen </i></p><p>Interaction between civilian and military leaders has been the subject of much study in the United States, particularly in more recent times in the context of the Trump Administration and the US armed forces. ² In contrast, the Australian civil-military experience has not been the subject of much significant assessment at all. As a result, there is no Australian equivalent of either Huntington's <i>The Soldier</i> and the State or Janowitz's <i>The Professional Soldier</i>. ³ Still, even if there are common factors in maintaining a relationship of mutual trust, understanding the Australian cultural context and constitutional framework is essential to understanding the foundations of the Australian civil-military relationship. This paper considers the cultural and constitutional foundations of Australian civil-military relations and argues that they must be understood in their own context. The distinct place of military forces in Australian society, Australian military culture itself, and over a century of Australian foreign policy forms the foundation for interaction between Australian military and civilian leaders. This relationship relies upon a constitutional and legislative distribution of power between the elected civilian government, the senior leadership of the Australian Defence Force (ADF), and the Governor-General as a check on the use of command power for internal political purposes.⁴</p>