ABSTRACT
Nordlinger wrote, “Once the officers have become politicized as moderators it is a relatively small step to exercise governmental power themselves” (1977: 23). Indeed the Iraqi officers made this jump to the next step in 1958. The officers from 1936 to 1941 emerged as a moderator regime by acting as a politicized pressure group, at times threatening the government, preventing the accession of another government and replacing one civilian government with another. The officers of 1958 carried out a coup and became the government. Opposed to moderator regimes, the military as ruler regime dominates the state and political, economic and social life. They enact fundamental changes in regime structure according to their own preferences. These changes are usually carried out to establish an authoritarian system that is closed to competition from civilian political parties (ibid.: 7). While moderator regimes tend to preserve the status quo, ruler regimes enact radical changes in the political and socio-economic system, often seeking to improve the lives of the poor and disenfranchised. Changes include redistribution schemes, nationalization of industry, land reform and providing low income housing. The ruler regime argues that such reforms will extend over indefinite periods of time and thus legitimizes and perpetuates military rule. Unlike guardian regimes, which return power to civilian authority after a few years, ruler armies do not or rarely act on such promises. Ruler regimes do allow civilians into the government particularly if they possess their technocratic skills or financial expertise that are beyond the capabilities of the military officers in power. Incorporating civilian ministers in the government also provides the ruler regime a façade of civilian rule to the public. Despite the presence of civilians, the ruler regime is defined by the paramount power of the officers. In these regimes it is the civilians that are subordinate to military governors (ibid.: 26-8).
