ABSTRACT
Once civilian governments have been ousted, the leaders of military intervention seek to justify their seizure of control. The constituent elements of political development have been subject to heated debate among scholars—and, as a natural outgrowth of dispute, have generated extensive commentary. The extent of political participation can readily be altered by military regimes; the degree of popular identification with the political system is not susceptible to easy manipulation. The experiences of Turkey under Ataturk point up the severe limitations of military rule unless it is linked closely with the development of effective political institutions. To examine political change adequately, sociologists must remain continually aware of the capacity of political institutions to satisfy demands. To rule effectively, once having achieved power, military leaders must develop political organizations of civilian types or work out viable relations with civilian political groups.
