History has tested Central European nations and states to the extreme. The revolutions of 1989 mark the third time in the 20th century that Central Europe has embarked on a political, economic, social, and defense and security "return to Europe." In the five years since the 1989-90 revolutions, Central Europeans have made enormous progress.
If NATO follows its December 1994 mandate, it will draft a study that will establish criteria for expansion of the Alliance. While it is assumed that active participation in NACC and PFP, and some reasonable demonstration of the successful performance of democratic political institutions, privatized economies, and respect for human rights will be among the necessary conditions for NATO membership, it is also likely that effective civilian control of the military as well as some minimal degree of military capability and NATO compatibility will be necessary conditions.
Though NATO will find it difficult to define these criteria because each state has its own history, culture, and unique set of institutions, it will be especially difficult to define and achieve consensus on what constitutes "effective" democratic control of the military. This study suggests the following four conditions for consideration as being necessary for a state to exert effective civilian oversight of the military:
(1) The constitution and/or its amendments and laws must establish a clear division of authority between the president and government (prime minister and defense minister). The law should be clear for peacetime authority (e.g., who commands and controls the military and promotes military officers); and for crisis (e.g., emergency powers) and transition to war.
(2) Parliament must exert oversight of the military by exercising control of the defense budget; also it's role must be clear in deploying armed forces in emergency and war.
(3) The civilian defense ministry should exercise peacetime government control of the military (General Staff and military commanders) including preparation of the defense budget; access to intelligence; involvement in strategic planning, force structure development, arms acquisitions and deployments; and military promotions.
(4) Citizen confidence in the military must be restored to the armed forces in order for them to be an effective institution. Society--having emerged from the communist period when the military was often used as an instrument of external or internal oppression--must perceive the armed forces to be under effective national control. Military training levels and equipment must also be sufficient to protect the state.
If NATO comes to define these four conditions as necessary for exercising "effective" democratic control of the military, most Central European states would not meet these standards. When examining Central Europe's civil-military progress since the 1989 revolutions, it is clear that much has already been achieved. It is equally clear that much remains to be done!
What Needs to Be Done?
Poland: Government crises and lack of effective civilian oversight of the military will continue until Poland has adopted a new Constitution. Poland's civil-military crisis must be resolved because Polish society holds the military in very high esteem, and because the military has been often used for internal and external purposes historically. The absence of any clear command authority and of civilian control over the military is a recipe for disaster.
Poland has come a long way in restoring prestige to the military; and Parliament has reassumed effective oversight of the defense budget, if it did twice equivocate on whether the president or defense minister controls the military and fail to reform the law. Onyszkiewicz began to restructure the armed forces to be compatible with NATO. Though Kolodziejczyk continued this process and stemmed the defense budget slide (since 1986), the military still has a way to go to achieve NATO compatibility. Poland, though, has not yet fulfilled what are likely to be defined as necessary conditions for effective civilian control of the military and for NATO membership. This can only occur after it adopts a new Constitution that establishes clear lines of authority between president and government and returns enough authority to the civilian defense ministry to provide effective oversight of the military.
Hungary: The October 1989 Constitution, which replaced Hungary's 1949 Constitution, was written by reform communists and established authority between the president, government, and National Assembly, which only by majority could declare a state of emergency or war. Most important, the Hungarian National Assembly amended the defense law in February 1990 to assume authority (from the Defense Council) to deploy Hungarian armed forces at home or abroad. This power effectively terminated the Soviet Statute system, which, as in Poland, had provided the USSR direct access to Hungarian armed forces. The Hungarian Parliament had reassumed national control of Hungary's armed forces.
Hungary also needs a new Constitution, but Hungary's two-thirds Parliamentary majority may not be adequate to develop the broad-based consensus necessary for a Constitution. Among other things, the Constitution needs to clarify the role of the president during war (symbolic or real) and establish a new Constitutional (presently two-thirds) amending formula.
On the military side, the armed forces have been significantly cut from 120,000 to 65,000 and are being restructured for NATO integration. But financial resources have greatly constrained Hungary's armed forces restructuring, modernization, and PFP-exercise participation.
Parliament has been effective in exerting control of the defense budget and deploying Hungarian armed forces. The Constitutional Court's decisions have been respected and have led to major defense reforms allowing the government (prime minister and defense minister) to take control of the military in peacetime and emergency. However, Hungary still needs a Constitution (that is not a two-thirds majority victor's mandate) to define the president's wartime powers. Also in light of recent defense ministry and General Staff changes, Hungary needs to reassert effective "civilian" defense ministry oversight of the military.
Czech Republic: Of the four Central European states, the Czech Republic seems to have made the most progress in developing "effective" civilian defense ministry control of the military. The president and parliament have deemed the armed forces to be reliable and the armed forces have publicly apologized for its previous interferences in Czech society. The Czech Republic though still faces two constitutional tasks: First, what to do with the Senate, the upper house of its parliament; second, and most important, correct a significant constitutional ambiguity. The (German-model) president, as "supreme commander of the armed forces," must get the prime minister's approval for employing forces and to commission and promote generals. Since the president's emergency powers can cause confusion during a crisis, this needs to be rectified.
Slovakia: In contrast to the Czech Republic, political instability has characterized Slovakia, which is now on its third government in less than two years, and has hampered its more daunting military tasks and reform efforts. In many ways Slovakia's January 1993 independence has thrown the country back in time. Slovakia must build its institutions from scratch; a new defense ministry, an Army command (now General Staff), and armed forces.
Whether or not Slovakia is able to advance its initial defense reform efforts, it does need to fix its Constitution, which stresses national rather than civil rights. This exacerbates ethnic tensions within Slovakia as well as with neighboring Hungary. The real question will be whether the Meciar-coalition government will be able to provide enough stability so that Slovakia can continue along the defense reform path established by the Moravcik-coalition government. The first indications are discouraging, particularly if Meciar pursues his efforts to remove the president.
Conclusion
If NATO does determine that "effective" democratic control of the military is a necessary condition for Alliance membership, then it appears that Central Europe has significant work to do. All four Visegrad states have made notable progress in establishing real Parliamentary oversight of the military and in restoring military prestige to their respective armed forces. The common problem of resource scarcity has uniformly limited the development of Central Europe's armed forces modernization and compatibility with NATO.
Poland and Hungary need new constitutions to address fundamental civil-military problems that still exist, notably presidential and governmental powers in peacetime and war must be clarified. The Czech Republic needs to amend its constitution to clarify the president's role for employing forces during emergency, and Slovakia needs to amend its constitution regarding civil rights. Only with this constitutional clarification, can real governmental (civilian defense ministry) control of the military occur in Poland. Hungary must face the question of how to assert "effective" civilian defense ministry control over its armed forces, and Slovakia must actually jump-start its defense reform.
 |
 |