东南亚军人政权在第三波民主化浪潮下走向民主化的道路，但20世纪90年代后的泰国、缅甸和印尼的民主化和军人干政的进程与后果呈现不同景象。本文对东南亚军人政权民主化时期的军政关系建构和军事政变原因进行了研究。解释军事政变导致民主倒退现象的研究中，形成结构主义和理性主义研究范式和以政治发展理论、威权政体类型学、市民社会理论、战略选择理论为代表的经典理论，以期建立一般性的分析模式。然而转型民主国家的国情千差万别，结构主义和理性主义研究范式均存在一定的局限性，无法对政治转型后的东南亚军人干政行为给予充分解释。本文融合结构主义研究范式的政体类型学和理性主义研究范式的转型方式理论，通过比较分析君主化军队和个人化军队两种权威关系的不同转型方式，从而解释军人干政的回归和军事政变的发生。本文的实证研究发现东南亚军人政权存在着干政合法性和派系主义挑战的不同解决方式。与君主制深度绑定的泰国军人政权依靠君主的权威而具有干政和仲裁军人派系斗争的合法性，因此无论是经历垮台式转型还是让权式转型的泰国君主权威均规避了民主化的冲击而得以延续，泰国的君主化军队架构也得以保留。当转型后出现军政关系危机时，泰国军人可在国王支持下发动军事政变来颠覆文官政府并维护君主制。印尼和缅甸则依靠政治强人的个人权威来解决合法性和派系主义的挑战。苏哈托政权经历垮台式转型后，个人化军队的权威关系无法在新的权力结构中延续，因而在军政关系危机时印尼军人被迫妥协和让权。丹瑞在推动缅甸让权式转型后，个人化军队的权威关系延续了既有的权力架构，因此在军政关系危机时缅甸军队可发动军事政变来夺回政权。本文的研究创新在于融合结构主义和理性主义研究范式方面做出了理论贡献，突破传统的君主化军队理论，创造了个人化军队的概念，聚焦军人政权转型前后的结构变化和军事精英之间的博弈，拓展转型方式理论并结合威权政体类型学，系统性地对冷战后东南亚军人政权开启民主化后的军事政变进行了考察，为比较政治学的区域国家民主化进程的反复性提供了新的理解和军政关系研究的扎实案例。

The military regime in Southeast Asia has embarked on a path of democratization under the third wave of democratization, but the process and consequences of democratization and military intervention in Thailand, Myanmar, and Indonesia since the 1990s have presented different consequences. This article studies the construction of civil-military relations and the causes of military coups during the democratization of military regimes in Southeast Asia.In the study of explaining the phenomenon of democratic reversal caused by military coups, two major research paradigms have been formed: structuralism and rationalism, as well as classic theories represented by political development theory, regime typology theory, civil society theory, and strategic choice theory, with a view to establishing a general analytical model. However, the national conditions of transitional democracies vary widely, and both the structuralism and rationalism research paradigms have certain limitations, which cannot fully explain the military intervention behavior in Southeast Asia after the political transition. This article integrates the typology of government in the structuralism research paradigm and the theory of transition modes in the rationalism research paradigm, and explains the return of military intervention and the occurrence of military coups by comparing and analyzing the different transition methods of the authoritarian relationship between the monarchised military and the personalized military.The empirical research in this paper finds that there are different solutions to the challenges of legitimacy and factionalism in military regimes in Southeast Asia. The military regime of Thailand, which is deeply bound to the monarchy, relies on the authority of the monarchy and has the legitimacy to intervene in politics and arbitrate the struggles of military factions. Therefore, the Thailand monarchy‘s authority have avoided the impact of democratization and have been continued though both the liquidated transition and absorptive transition, and Thailand‘s monarchised military structure has also been preserved. When there is a crisis in civil-military relations after the transition, Thailand‘s monarchised military can launch a military coup with the support of the king to subvert the civilian government and maintain the monarchy. Indonesia and Myanmar rely on the personal authority of political strongmen to address the challenges of legitimacy and factionalism. After the liquidated transition of the Suharto regime, the authority relationship of the personalized military cannot be continued in the new power structure, so the Indonesian military group was forced to compromise and cede power during the crisis of civil-military relations. After Than Shwe promoted Myanmar‘s absorptive transition, the authority relationship of the personalized military continued the existing power structure, so in the event of a crisis in military political relations, the Myanmar military could launch a military coup to seize power.The innovation of this research lies in making theoretical contributions in integrating the research paradigms of structuralism and rationalism, the breakthrough of the traditional theory of the monarchised military, the creation of the concept of the personalized army, the focus on structural changes before and after the transition of military regime and the game between military elites, the expansion of transition mode theory and the combination of authoritarian regime typology. This article systematically examines the military coups during the democratization of military regimes in Southeast Asia after the Cold War, and provides a new understanding of the repeatability in the process of democratization of regional countries in Comparative politics and a solid case study of civil-military relations.