By its very nature, a military organization can never be democratic. It is always a highly centralized administrative mechanism, which works through a single control and command system, with full acceptance of a hierarchical arrangement among the rank and file of the organization. However, this does not mean that such ‘distinct organizational discipline’, and the nature of its specialization which resolves crises by force make a military undemocratic. Yet, a military can be understood as democratic if it mainly: (a) follows the orders of the legitimate authority as per the constitution; (b) internalizes international law where the state is one of the signatories; and (c) respects the norms and values of human rights with its specialized skills, capability, and its ‘monopoly of violence’, as far as possible. Thus, both the role of the military in politics, and its level of professionalism indicate the status of democracy in a particular country. For good civil-military relations and for democracy and military to have a symbiotic relationship as well as work in coordination, there is a need to deepen and strengthen democracy. All these requisites are not only deeply influenced by national history, sentiment and traditions, but also depend on the relationship of the military with the spheres of power, politics, economy, modern science and technology, culture, and history. Civil-military relations are also

determined by public opinion towards defence and foreign policies of the regime, and certain actions of the military regarding these policies, etc.