Huntington in Canada: The Triumph of Subjective Control

• Author: Peter Kasurak
• Published date: 01 April 2022
• Date: 01 April 2022
• DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20970535
• Subject Matter: Articles

https://doi.org/10.1177/0095327X20970535

Armed Forces & Society

2022, Vol. 48(2) 323 –342

© The Author(s) 2020

Article reuse guidelines:

sagepub.com/journals-permissions

DOI: 10.1177/0095327X20970535

journals.sagepub.com/home/afs

Article

Huntington in Canada:

The Triumph of

Subjective Control

Peter Kasurak

1

Abstract

Samuel Huntington theorized in The Soldier and the State that rather than make

the military in the image of society (subjective control), both superior civilian

control and military outcomes would result if the military was allowed its own

sphere and culture, shaped by military requirements (objective control). Since

1963, the Canadian Armed Forces have argued for objective control, while

political leadership and the country have largely paid little attention to military

demands for greater social independence. An examination of defense policy, the

“civilianization” crisis, the Somalia Inquiry, and diversity legislation and programs

demonstrate the triumph of subjective control. This article concludes that

subjective control has had costs to civilians in military shirking and to the mil-

itary in alienation from its parent society. Huntington remains useful, but it is

time to consider modern alternatives to understand civil-military relationships.

Keywords

Canada, Huntington, civil–military relations, civilianization, diversity

Samuel Huntington’s The Soldier and the State has driven the discussion of civil–

military relations for over half a century. Its historical foundations have been ques-

tioned (Coffman, 1991), and rival theories of civil–military relations have appeared

and supplanted Huntington in scholarly circles (Feaver, 2003; Schiff, 1995). Yet The

Soldier and the State has maintained its grip on the Canadian Armed Forces (CAF).

1

Royal Military College of Canada, Kingston, Ontario, Canada

Corresponding Author:

Peter Kasurak, 437 Hatfield Cr., Orl´

eans, ON, K1E 1M9, France.

Email: peterkasurak@rogers.com

324 Armed Forces & Society 48(2)

According to Horn and Bentley (2015), two prominent Canadian military authors,

Huntington’s book is

probably the only work on military professionalism known to the vast majority of

Canadian officers over the period 1960 to present. It was the main, if not sole source

on the subject on the curricula of all military courses in the CAF during this time. Few

were the officers who read it thoroughly, to be sure, but excerpts were used liberally,

and most lectures on the subject referred only to him. (p. 44)

Huntington’s appeal to Canadian officers lies in the strongly normative nature of

his theory. Janowitz (1960), the other pillar of modern civil–military relations stud-

ies, describes what had happened in the 1960s United States. Feaver and Schiff work

to define what will happen as civilian and military officials work together, Hunting-

ton states how they should work. The dominant problem in Canadian civil–military

relations is a profound disagreement on the norms stated by Huntington, especially

his doctrine of subjective and objective control. Objective control is a norm accepted

by the bulk of the Canadian officer corps, but it is a norm that civilian stakeholders

have never adopted and have continually disregarded. This article will describe what

Huntington meant by subjective and objective co ntrol and how Canadians have

responded to his theory. Military professional journals and other sources such as

published conference profceedings for the period 1971-2009 were searched for

writings on the subject of civil-military relations by serving and retired officers.

Twenty-three articles in eleven journals and two other sources were identified.

These were then analyzed for themes or common concerns about the civil-military

relationship. Each theme was then explored using subjectively determined selected

historic crisis points (Online Appendix A). Finally, the article assesses whether the

triumph of subjective control in Canada has had the negative effects predicted by

Huntington.

Huntington’s Theory of Subjective and Objective Control

Huntington argued that there were two ways for th e civilian state to control its

military—“subjective control” and “objective control.” Subjective control “achieves

its end by civilianizing the military, making it the mirror of the state.” Huntington

viewed the civil state as inevitably fractured into groups by a government institution

(legislative vs. the executive) or by “constitutional form” (democracy, fascism, and

communism). According to him, one element would seek dominance over the others

and in an effort to do so would make the military conform to its interests and image,

demanding structural changes unrelated to security requirements. The alternative

was “objective control.” In his model, objective control militarized the military,

making it the tool of the state. It achieved this by civilians allowing the professional

officer corps a considerable degree of autonomy. A professional officer corps qua

professional was not driven by social forces, ideologies, or institutions in society but

2Armed Forces & Society XX(X)