🧠Core Argument: Military Trust Comes From Non‑Partisanship
Public trust in the armed forces often rests on the military’s legitimation as, and aspiration to be, a non‑partisan institution. This non‑partisan identity shapes how citizens evaluate the military relative to other state institutions and to political actors.
📊 Cross‑National Evidence (2006–2021)
Using cross‑national data covering 2006–2021, the analysis tests hypotheses linking public trust in the military to:
- trust in other (partisan) state institutions;
- the military’s centrality or influence in politics;
- the presence of intrastate conflict (civil war);
- the military’s recruitment format (e.g., selective conscription).
🔍 Key Findings
- Falling trust in partisan state institutions tends to benefit the armed forces: when citizens lose faith in partisan institutions, the military’s relative trust rises.
- When the military exercises influence over politics—contradicting its non‑partisan legitimation—it is evaluated according to the same performance standards applied to governments.
- Civil wars tend to convert the military into a factional actor, and public trust in the armed forces declines during such conflicts.
- Selective conscription undermines public confidence in the military compared to other recruitment formats.
⚖️ Why It Matters
These patterns carry implications for civil‑military relations, the effectiveness of armed forces, and democratic stability: non‑partisan legitimation helps sustain military trust, but politicization, internal conflict, and recruitment choices can erode that trust and reshape how the public judges the military.
