Prime Minister Albanese takes a selfie with Australian Army soldiers from 8th/9th Battalion, Royal Australian Regiment, who were supporting northern New South Wales communities in the wake of Tropical Cyclone Alfred , 10 March 2025. (Defence Images)

A distinctly Australian approach to civil-military relations

Examining a neglected but crucial aspect of Australia’s national security debate.

Mick Ryan

28 April 20254 min read

This article probably won’t excite readers as much as stories about drone warfare, Ukrainian battlefields or Chinese naval task groups circumnavigating Australia. However, civil-military relations are more important than any of these subjects.

Why is the theory and practice of civil–military relations crucial to liberal democracies like Australia?

Unlike America and Britain, there has been little discussion of civil-military relations in Australia.

It all stems from how models of civil-military relations guide elected politicians in managing military organisations. A nation’s civil-military relations model determines how their defence organisation operates. As Risa Brooks notes, a civil-military relations model aims to achieve an efficient way “to organise relationships among actors to ensure both civilian control of the military and a state’s strategic and military effectiveness.” Without a clear civil-military operating model, every new government will develop its own approach, which takes time and reduces efficiency and effectiveness. No country, not least a mid-sized power like Australia, can afford such a temporal and institutional drag on such a difficult undertaking.

One of the most influential modern examinations of the military profession and its relationship with society in the post-Second World War era is Samuel Huntington’s The Soldier and the State. Huntington advocated for a civil–military relations model that created a clear division of labour and responsibility between civilians and the military: civilians only do policy and do not interfere in military affairs; military leaders look after military strategy but never intrude on policy or political matters.

In Australia, the Huntington thesis has been influential, even though it is American in origin and has limited relevance to Australia’s British-oriented military system. Scholars such as Hew Strachan have pointed out the central problem with Huntington’s approach, which is that in the real world, there is no clear division between politics and the military, particularly in modern, technologically integrated warfare.

Unlike America and Britain, there has been little discussion of civil-military relations in Australia. As Mike Evans has pointed out, despite attempts in the early 2020s to revive examination of Australian civil-military relations, one has travel back to the 1970s and 80s for scholarly work. One Australian contribution from this era was a 1980 article by Air Commodore Ray Funnell. Funnell did not believe Huntington’s approach was appropriate for Australia, noting that it would result in an “absolutist profession in which the military isolates itself professionally from society”.

We cannot just absorb models from nations whose politics, military systems and societies differ from ours.

So, what is to be done?

First, we need to describe why an Australian model for civil-military relations is vital. We cannot just absorb models from nations whose politics, military systems and societies differ from ours. Australia needs a distinct approach to civil-military relations that permits elected leaders to be accountable to citizens in achieving political objectives and which allows military leaders to create good strategy in support of political objectives. While the Constitution and Defence Act provide a legal foundation, the theory and practice of Australian civil-military relations requires more detail.

Second, we must conceive of civil-military relations not as a single relationship but as a mix of different relationships not just between the Australian Defence Force (ADF) and the Government but also between the ADF and the Australian people, and the ADF and the bureaucracy.

Third, greater integration is necessary. Most research into effective national security operations now focuses on the crucial role of integration and shared responsibility for strategy. The old civil-military separation models are not appropriate for a hyper-connected world. As former Defence Department Secretary Duncan Lewis has described, developing deeper levels of trust and respect are essential to building this integrated approach. This can produce reductions in the time needed to make committee-based decisions and more trust in individuals to effect command of their institutions.

Fourth, the Australian civil-military relations model must be built on all participants having greater understanding of the others. Military personnel need to understand where advice is required at the strategic level, and why military advice it is not the singular consideration in national security deliberations. It also requires a better balance between military and bureaucratic cultures. Senior military officers and senior public servants are not the same. One is subject to unlimited liability while the other is not. One is trained to use authority to command and make decisions, while the other is incentivised to work within committee decision making. Both approaches are important and necessary components of a civil-military relationship. This relationship must be capable of decisions at the pace of the modern world.

Finally, enhanced transparency is crucial to the sound operation of civil-military relations. In recent years, political leaders have severely constrained the ability of senior military officers to speak publicly. In making the leadership of the ADF invisible, politicians are not only impacting on the legitimacy of the military institutions, they are leaving on the bench good strategic communicators who can explain the complexity of modern military conflicts to Australians.

A modern and distinctly Australian theory of civil-military relations provides an essential foundation for Australian 21st century national security. The effective and trusted interplay between the military, the Government and the people – an idea first expressed in its modern form by Clausewitz – is fundamental to contemporary and future civil-military relations. It underpins the effectiveness and reputation of the Australian military, and development of effective national security policy more broadly. Given the profound national security challenges facing Australia, there are few issues of higher importance.

About the author

Mick Ryan

Mick Ryan is a Senior Fellow for Military Studies in the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program.

Topics

Australia Defence & security