ABSTRACT
Scholarly analyses of how coup-initiated governments rule are more numerous, detailed and comparative than are studies of military disengagement. Timothy J. Colton's framework provides an excellent way of depicting armed forces' involvement in politics, and can help us better understand the problems of disengagement. Some theories of disengagement or neutrality start from the premise that, since coercion plays a paramount role in most developing countries, the armed forces can never be isolated from politics. Armed forces are never totally apolitical, given their role in national defense and security, their quest for professional autonomy and budget resources, and their historical roles in many states as leading agents of governmental personnel and policy change. Their "intervention" is an extreme form of "involvement." Traditions of political change through golpes de estado, or analogous patterns of the armed forces as "moderators" of civilian political excesses, are said to justify continuing involvement.
