Instant Scholar: Samuel P Huntington's 'The Soldier and the State' - a foundational work on civil-military relations

When The Soldier and the State was published in 1957, it instantly became a landmark contribution to the field of political science, especially in the domain of civil-military relations. Written by Samuel P. Huntington—later known for The Clash of Civilizations—the book was the first comprehensive theoretical framework to analyse how democratic states should manage their military forces without compromising either national security or liberal democratic norms.

Over half a century later, Huntington ’s ideas continue to shape academic research, military policy, and civilian oversight practices across the world.

What Is the Book About? At its core, The Soldier and the State addresses a fundamental dilemma: how can a society ensure civilian control over the military while still maintaining an effective and professional fighting force?

Huntington believed that the key to this balance lay in professionalism. He proposed that a truly professional officer corps would remain politically neutral and subordinate to civilian authority while maintaining the military expertise necessary for national defence. He called this balance objective civilian control.

Key Concepts Explained
1. The Professional Soldier

Huntington opens by examining what it means to be a professional soldier. Drawing on sociological and philosophical traditions, he identifies three defining characteristics of a military professional:

• Expertise: Mastery over a complex body of specialized knowledge, particularly in the management of violence.
  
  
• Responsibility: A commitment to using this expertise for the benefit of society, namely by serving the state and defending its interests.
  
  
• Corporateness: A sense of unity and identity within the officer corps, fostered by training institutions, rituals, and a shared professional ethic.
  

This framing set the stage for his larger argument: if the military is allowed to develop as a distinct and autonomous professional institution, it will be both apolitical and effective.



2. Objective vs. Subjective Civilian Control

Perhaps the most enduring theoretical contribution of the book is Huntington’s distinction between subjective and objective civilian control:

• Subjective Civilian Control: Civilian groups—such as political parties, ideologies, or interest factions—seek to control the military by merging it into their own structure. This includes practices like appointing military leaders based on loyalty or enforcing ideological conformity.
  
  For example, a leftist government might politicise the military to ensure it supports socialist values, while a conservative regime might rely on military backing to suppress dissent. Huntington criticises this model, arguing that it weakens military professionalism and risks politicising the armed forces.
  
  
• Objective Civilian Control: Civilian leaders maintain firm control over the military by acknowledging and respecting its autonomy as a professional body. The military, in turn, remains politically neutral and focuses strictly on defence matters.
  
  Huntington sees this model as superior, arguing that a professional military with political detachment is more reliable and loyal to the constitutional order.
  
  

3. The Military Mindset: Realism and ConservatismAnother distinctive feature of Huntington’s analysis is his portrayal of the military ethos. According to him, the military profession is naturally inclined toward a conservative and realist worldview. Key traits include:

• Skepticism of change: The military values tradition, hierarchy, and discipline, making it wary of rapid political or social transformations.
  
  
• Focus on order and security: Officers are trained to view the world in terms of threats, conflict, and strategy, rather than ideals or reform.
  
  
• Moral clarity: Military culture often encourages binary thinking—friend vs. foe, duty vs. betrayal—which can conflict with civilian complexity and compromise.
  
  

Huntington does not see this conservative orientation as inherently problematic; in fact, he argues that it serves as a necessary counterbalance to the liberal values of civilian society. The danger arises, he claims, when civilians attempt to mould the military in their own ideological image.

Case Studies: US, Britain, and Prussia To ground his theory, Huntington offers historical and comparative analysis of civil-military relations in three key countries:

United States In the US, Huntington believed the tradition of civilian supremacy was strong but had undervalued military professionalism. American liberalism often fostered distrust of standing armies, leading to a military that was politically subordinated but also underdeveloped professionally. He called for greater respect for military autonomy in order to build a more capable defence establishment.

United Kingdom Britain represented a model of subjective control, where the military was closely tied to the aristocracy and the civilian elite. Huntington viewed this as stable but less applicable to democratic societies with broader political participation.

Prussia Prussia (later Germany) exemplified objective control: the military developed as a distinct, professional body with a clear mission and a strong sense of duty to the state. Huntington admired the Prussian model for its balance of autonomy and subordination, although he acknowledged its flaws—especially its later descent into nationalism and militarism during the World Wars.

Huntington’s View on American Civil-Military Relations Huntington’s own context—the early Cold War—deeply influenced his recommendations. In the 1950s, the United States was confronting a long-term geopolitical threat from the Soviet Union. At the same time, domestic politics were turbulent, with intense partisan competition and ideological suspicion (e.g., McCarthyism ).

In this environment, Huntington urged a restructuring of civil-military relations to meet the demands of a permanent national security state. His main arguments included:

• The US should embrace a more professionalised military that could think strategically and act globally.
  
  
• Civilian leaders must resist politicising the military, especially in times of national crisis.
  
  
• The officer corps should be educated not just in tactics but in grand strategy and policy, making it a capable partner—not a rival—of civilian leadership.
  
  

Influence and Criticisms Why the Book Matters Since its publication, The Soldier and the State has become a foundational text for scholars, military officers, and policymakers alike. It introduced a clear normative framework for understanding and managing civil-military relations in liberal democracies.

The book is routinely assigned in war colleges, political science departments, and defence institutions. Its principles continue to influence how nations like the United States, India, and Israel train their military and oversee national defence.

Key Criticisms Despite its influence, Huntington’s work has drawn critiques over the years:

• Overidealisation of the Prussian model: Some scholars argue that Huntington overlooked the dangers of excessive military autonomy, such as the rise of militarism in Germany.
  
  
• Assumption of military apoliticism: Critics say that even “professional” militaries can develop institutional interests and ideological leanings, which may subtly influence policy.
  
  
• Rigid binary thinking: The distinction between subjective and objective control may oversimplify a more complex reality where civil-military interactions are fluid and contextual.
  
  

Modern scholars like Peter Feaver and Eliot Cohen have developed more nuanced models (e.g., the “agency theory” or “unequal dialogue” frameworks) that attempt to describe the real-world interplay between military institutions and civilian leaders.

Relevance Today In an era marked by military coups, democratic backsliding, and politicisation of defence forces across many countries, Huntington’s insights remain disturbingly relevant. From Turkey and Egypt to the United States and India, the debate over civilian supremacy versus military autonomy is far from settled.

As democracies grapple with threats both internal and external, the challenge is to maintain strong and effective armed forces without eroding the civilian foundations of constitutional government.

Huntington’s answer still resonates: Professionalism, not politicisation, is the key to a stable civil-military relationship.

Samuel P. Huntington’s The Soldier and the State offers a powerful theoretical lens through which to view one of the most critical aspects of governance—how to manage the relationship between the sword and the shield, between the guardians and those they serve. While not without its critics, the book remains an essential guide for understanding the delicate balance between military power and democratic control, a question as vital today as it was in 1957.

Full text: Samuel P Huntington's 'The Soldier and the State'