• The source of legitimacy in a democracy is a constitution based on the separation of powers, under which an elected government will rule.

This is true even when the government does not abide by all the basic principles of liberal democratic constitutionalism.

While it is not necessary for a constitution to be manifest as a written document, most modern constitutions are found in written documents.

• The source of legitimacy in a militarized society is the capacity to use force.

The use of force is not subjected to any overriding rules or monitored by any institutions. If there is a constitution at all, it is a document upon which the military ruler or clique can incorporate whatever they wish.

• The separation of powers provides a check and balance mechanism to ensure that different government institutions function as they are meant to.

• There is little/no separation of powers. Everything is under the direct or indirect control of the military/ruling regime. There is hence nothing to limit the powers exercised by the rulers.

• Accountability and command responsibility are concepts innate to the system; political institutions, public bodies and all government officials are expected to abide by the relevant standards.

• Accountability exists only to the rulers. Beyond that, no standards are followed, no actions regulated.

• In a democracy, the entire system is subjected to the rule of law. This implies that:

--Laws arrived at by consensus are above everything else.

--The implementation of the law is subjected to a process laid down in the law itself.

--The rulers, like everyone else, are subjected to this law and process.

• Under militarism, the ruler is above the law. This means that carrying out his orders need not be subjected to any process; the ruler can decide on whatever way his orders are implemented.

• Rule of law institutions are established to be impartial and independent.

• Rule of law institutions are taken over by the rulers and used as rubber stamps for their orders and regulations.

• Criminal justice and fair trials are sacred in their importance to the effective and harmonious governance of society. In
particular, criminal justice allows for:

--Distinctions between guilt and innocence;

--Punishments proportionate to crimes.

• Criminal justice is no longer sacred, as society is not to be governed by legal concepts. This means that punishments are no longer proportionate to crimes, removing the distinction between guilt and innocence. Fair trials are therefore no longer necessary.

• Equality is the ideal basis of societal relationships and reason is the basis for institutional arrangements. This works to provide the perception of norms, dispute management and justice.

• Power and force become the basis of relationships and there is a gradual displacement of reason from all institutional arrangements. Options for resolving disputes thus become limited, effecting violence as both the means and the ends.

When people’s options are restricted, they are forced to participate in militarization.

• Policymaking is done through the building of consensus, involving the exchange of ideas, opinions and perspectives of different interest groups. All attempts at resolving problems thus incorporate the freedom of expression and the right to information. Coercion is kept to the minimal, while its elimination remains the ideal.

• Policymaking is separated from the needs and views of the public; there is no freedom of expression or right to information. Instead, blatant propaganda is initiated by the rulers to create the impression of artificial consensus. Coercion is the order of the day and all dissent is brutally silenced.

• Facts are established upon proof and reason, on which basis decisions are made. All discourse centers around the struggle to reduce the distance between what is imagined/speculated and what is proved.

• Facts and figures lose significance, creating a ‘no-fact zone’.

• There is a constant search for truth and a re-invention of language to improve society. Words are given meanings consensually to minimize friction between diverse interests.

• The distinction between truth and the absence of truth is made relative, to the extent that all rules of language and discourse become irrelevant. Words have whatever meaning given to them at any particular moment.

• The utmost respect for life and prevention of murder is the ideal moral foundation of democracy. For decision makers, all other considerations, including security, are secondary to the preservation of human life.

• Under militarization, the absolute prohibition against murder and respect for life ceases to be significant. In fact, murder becomes a lesser evil; gradually, murder becomes a way to settle disputes and to threaten individuals.

• All life is valued highly and special measures are taken to protect and empower women and other vulnerable social groups. The concept of guardianship holds considerable moral weight, whether relating to that of parent-child or statecitizen.

The protection of persons in police custody for instance, is an important norm and its violation is considered morally demeaning, to be subjected to sanction.

• The cheapening of life extends to other areas such as personal and family relationships. In particular, respect for women is eroded, resulting in their contemptuous and violent treatment. The same is meted out to other marginalized and vulnerable social groups. In fact, domestic or private violence is simply a reflection of the public violence occurring in a militarized society.

• Corruption is seen as an abhorrent practice, something to be avoided at all cost, in all areas of life. Legal and other measures are therefore taken to promote transparency, weed out corrupt practices and punish those involved in them.

• Corruption is a way of life. Once political and other rulers do away with rule of law safeguards, corruption becomes intertwined in all aspects of daily behavior. It becomes a means to gain power, make money and manipulate persons.

• Individuals seeking reforms are encouraged, as is their potential to address society’s ills. The state and society provide platforms for dissenting ideas and proposals.

• Individuals seeking reform and improvement are uncertain of where to begin or whom to rely on for support. This is particularly so as there are no official or legal avenues for expressing dissenting views.

• Fostering confidence and solidarity amongst society is the aim of moral and ethical discourse.

• Distrust towards others is the norm.

• Special attention is given to the weak and marginalized, to improve their chances of competing with those in more powerful positions.

The ideal for individuals seeking reform is to be mostly involved with these groups of society.

• Powerlessness becomes the excuse for compromise, no matter how morally unacceptable.