Military rule involves the forceful intervention of the armed forces – infantry, air force, navy and (sometimes) the police-in the political process. This happens when elected governments are removed from power through unconstitutional means such as coup d’etats. It is a regime that is backed by the power of the gun and not the rule of law, and that is why the military normally suspend the constitution immediately they overthrow elected governments. Although it is true that military intervention in politics is an aberration, it has more or less become a permanent feature of government, particularly in Africa. Commenting on this phenomenon, Professor Ben Nwabueze pointed out that: “Between 1952 when the first military takeover occurred in Egypt and 1997, there had been 83 coups involving of Africans’ fifty-three states.”
Each time the military intervenes, a number of reasons are often adduced by soldiers (and even civilians) to justify the takeover of government. One of the explanations has been the issue of corruption and mismanagement of the economy. Most African countries since the attainment of independence have experienced very poor economic development/growth despite the potential endowed by nature on them. The average African politician or ruler believes that access to political power is an opportunity for the accumulation of wealth at the expense of the general public. Hence, no sooner do people with very poor economic base enter politics than they get transformed to instant millionaires. Many of the leaders award spurious contracts to their cronies at inflated price.
Crimes assume a feature of the state. Armed robbery, terrorism and kidnapping are all over the place. The consequences of all these ills led to general disillusionment with people almost beckoning openly to the military to intervene and save them. The military as witnesses (and sometimes participants) to this ugly show have never failed to capitalize on the situation. They consequently overthrow such “corrupt” regimes with an immediate promise to stamp out corruption and correct the anomalies in the socio-economic and political landscape. This is exactly one of the reason attributed to the M5-RFP opposition along with the June 5 Movement for the recent military takeover in Mali when they marshaled deep-seated anger over a dire economy, perceived government corruption and Mali’s continuing battle against the unrest sown by regional jihadist group.
On the realistic side, however, while it is true that civilians often mismanage the economy, it cannot be said that the military are better managers. This is because the economic fortunes of the average African has not improved even with the advent of the military. With a few exceptions, there has been no concrete evidence of any sincere desire by military regimes in Africa to bring about fundamental socio- economic changes. While, it is also true that civilian governments are corrupt, soldiers have hardly fared any better to the extent that the people have seen that their military “messiahs” are no better than the civilians. The military officers fall prey to the same corruption they had denounced in the civilians.
Another reason often adduced for military intervention in politics is their intention to prevent dictatorship and abuse of power by civilians. There are cases where African political leaders, on getting to power, try to introduce one-party totalitarian regimes. In such states, opposition parties are either banned or incapacitated my maneuvers of the worst type. The tendency toward the one-party system in post-independent African states often leaves the armed forces as the only effective opposition to a government which had become unpopular. Such was the case in Ghana under President Kwame Nkrumah. Ghana was declared one- party state in 1964. Soon after, the president started to detain political opponents. Since there was no constitutional means by which the political leadership could be changed, force became the only alternative. Commenting on that military coup, the late General Kwesi Afrifa (then a Colonel) declared: “In respect for constitutional behavior and fair play, a coup d’état is the last resort in the range of means whereby an unpopular government may be overthrown. But in Ghana’s case where there was no constitutional means of offering a political opposition to the one-party government, the Armed Forces were automatically made to become the official opposition to the government.”
In Liberia, the late Sergeant (as he then was) Samuel Doe brought down the government of President William Tolbert in April, 1980 after the president had banned the opposition party and detained some of his political opponents. Similar reasons have been adduced for the military intervention in the politics of Uganda, Egypt, and more recently in Mali – in addition to other factors.
However, while it is true that most civilian regimes in Africa might be guilty of the arbitrary use of power, military regimes have also been found to be guilty of same misuse and abuse of power. While in power, the vast majority of military regimes in the Third World establish dictatorship which eliminates institutional participation of the masses in deciding their fate. In fact, military regimes, including the deposed General Idi Amin of Uganda, and late Mobutu Sese Seko of the Democratic Republic of Congo (Zaire), degenerated to such levels of despotism that they earned international condemnation. The world rejoiced when they were pushed out.
Election malpractice by the political elite is yet another reason often given for military intervention in politics. In an attempt to retain power at all cost, political leaders often resort to dubious means such as violence, thuggery and rigging to help them win elections. Elections are used to unleash violence against political opponents and perpetrate electoral fraud. The discontentment and reactions that followed the controversial 1964 federal elections, coupled with the widely rigged 1965 Western Regional elections and its consequent disturbances contributed to the military coup of January 15, 1966 in Nigeria. Similarly, it was the massive rigging of the 1983 general elections, among other things, that led to the military coup of December 31, 1983 and the subsequent collapse of the Nigerian Second Republic. Since the change that people needed badly could not come through elections, it had to be effected violently. This merely vindicated the assertion of the late President John F. Kennedy that: “Those who make peaceful change impossible make violent change inevitable”.
However, it is becoming increasingly clear that military regimes are not free from the horrible tangos of politics which culminate in outright electoral malpractices with debilitating social, political and economic consequences for countries affected. The June 12, 1993 annulment saga has remain etched in our memory in Nigerian polity – a creation of the military. Indeed, this exemplifies how the military could also frustrate the electoral process.
Unhealthy ethnic and tribal loyalty in place of national unity is yet another reason for military intervention in politics. Political parties in such countries, for example, derive their strength mainly from ethnic sentiments. This has often generated rivalries and tensions among ethnic groups. The case of Rwanda’s Hutu versus Tutsi is applicable here readily as example of inter-ethnic rivalries which led to the military coup and political instability in the country.
While it is true that the political class has been guilty of tribal sentiments and inter-ethnic rivalries, the same can also be said of the military. The military institutions in several African states have become politicized. Coups are frequently staged to protest selfish geo-ethnic interests. There was an allegation in certain quarters that the January 15, 1966 coup in Nigeria was purely an Igbo coup – stage-managed by young Igbo military officers in the Nigerian Army led by the late Major Chukwuma Nzeogu who felt that their ethnic group was sidelined in the affairs of the nation, and so also the General Gowon counter-coup against General Aguiyi Ironsi in 1967.
The wild desire on the part of the political leaders to rule for life is another excuse for military intervention in politics. On coming to power, many African leaders often declare themselves ‘life presidents’ and consolidate their power in such a way that the country and the people they are ruling become their own private estate and personal properties. They feel reluctant to relinquish their posts even when old age, incompetence and unpopularity stare them in the face. This unwarranted creation of life presidency not only creates disenchantment, but also causes political instability and military intervention. Often, the people are only too glad to welcome the new military ‘saviors’.
Unfortunately, however, the military men are also guilty of this sit-tight policy. The men in uniform may declare, as they always do, that they will stay in power for a short period, long enough to ‘solve the existing problems’ of the country. But few of the leaders of the military coups have returned to the barracks of their own free will. Some of them engage in very expensive and tortuous transition programmes. This has often led to counter-coups, thus creating a vicious circle of instability with consequent disappointments and sorrow.
Other factor which is specific to the armed forces is their inordinate ambition to rule as well as dissatisfaction within their rank and file. The ousted president of Mali, Ibrahim Boubakar Keita was believed to have widespread backing among high-ranking military officials, underscoring a divide between army leadership and unpredictable rank-and-file soldiers.- The army do not seem ready to comply with or understand their supposed role of defending their country’s territorial integrity. This urge to rule and the struggle for power among members of the armed forces has led to political instability and military coups in several African countries. Thus, apart from the military overthrowing civilians, we also find men within the armed forces plotting against a military regime. Hence, the many counter-coups that are experienced in some countries.
The last but not the least, is external factor or foreign instigation, especially, when the African leader becomes too strong and pursues policies that are not in the interest of the ‘Big Powers’ such as United States of America, Britain, France, China, Germany and Russia such powers often stir up internal revolt against that leader and then set up a regime that will be sympathetic to them. For example, it was alleged that the Pan-Africanist and anti-imperialist posture of late General Murtala Mohammed provided the basis for Western Europe and America to sponsor the abortive Dimka coup of February 13, 1976. There is also belief in some quarters that military intervention in neighboring countries could become contagious, and even for unjustifiable reasons. There was genuine belief that the Malian problem stems from the circumstance whereby the country reeled under the infestation of cross border turbulence at the instance of insurgents and circumstances associated with the fall of neighbouring Libya at the time of fall and assassination of its leader, Muamar Ghaddafi. Ever since, Mali lost its relative peace and associated progress Leading to the latest military coup in the country.
Although, external influence might have aided the outbreak of some military coups, it must be emphasized, however, that internal factors, are more important and influential. Without the internal factors, foreign powers could hardly succeed in engineering coups.
Based on the above, it can be seen that a lot of explanations have been offered as excuses for military intervention in politics. However, whichever way we look at these explanations and justifications, the time has come for Africans to rightly see military rule for what it is – an aberration. It is an unrepresentative government with vast potential for dictatorship. Moreover, from experiences, it is clear that the problems they sought to remove upon assumption of office linger on in several countries. The life of opulence of the top military hierarchy of the forces cannot be justified from their legal income. Military regimes in Africa have made little headway in their apparently half-hearted attempts to wipe out corruption, ethnicity, nepotism and inefficiency.
I therefore, hail the position expressed by the ECOWAS members states in condemning the latest Mali military coup, and pledging to close boarders to Mali and push for sanctions against “all the putsches, their partners and collaborators”.
Kala Esq, from Court of Appeal, Gombe Division sent the piece via [email protected]
YOU SHOULD NOT MISS THESE HEADLINES FROM NIGERIAN TRIBUNE
Nigeria’s Economy Shrank By 6.10% In Q2 2020 — NBS
NIGERIA’S Gross Domestic Product (GDP) in real terms declined by -6.10 per cent (year-on-year) in Q2 2020, thereby ending the three-year trend of low but positive real growth rates recorded since the 2016/17 recession. This is according to the second quarter (Q2) GDP report, released by the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) on Monday. When compared with Q2 2019, which recorded a growth of 2.12 per cent, the Q2 2020 growth…
Mailafia Sues Police, Shuns Invitation
FORMER deputy director, Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), Dr Obadiah Mailafia, has taken the Nigeria Police before the Plateau State High Court, asking the court to restrain the police from inviting him to appear before the Deputy Inspector-General (DIG) Force Investigation Department, Police Headquarters, Abuja. After two consecutive invitations and interrogation by the Department of State Services (DSS) over his…
My Four Weeks Battle With COVID-19 —Segun Awolowo
While many people still express the belief that COVID-19 is just hype, the executive director of the Nigerian Export Promotion Council (NEPC), Segun Awolowo, while narrating his four weeks battle with the virus, has called on people to take the virus seriously, be conscious of the infection and follow laid down preventive measures, adding that fear is the real killer for infected people. Yejide Gbenga-Ogundare reports…
Mali Junta Wants 3-Year Military Rule, Agrees To Free President
THE junta that seized power in Mali wants a military-led transitional body to rule for three years and has agreed to release ousted president Ibrahim Boubacar Keita, a source in a visiting West African delegation said Sunday. “The junta has affirmed that it wants a three-year transition to review the foundations of the Malian state. This transition will be directed by a body led by a soldier, who will also be head of state,” a source in the…