Mayo 2

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 23

Chapter Two

The Military Government

2.1. Concept of the Military Regime

A military regime is, basically, a system of managing government by the military.


Government can be defined as the administration of the state by the legitimate power-
holding group, the instrument of society that centralizes political and legal authority.
Military regimes are authoritarian and autocratic, though the degree of authoritarianism
varies from regime to regime. 1

Military involvement in politics either through military rule, sometimes referred to


as military government or military regime, is a political phenomenon that has been
characteristic of many societies especially the Third World countries. While it is regarded
as a political aberration across the globe in recent times, it has continued to threaten many
societies mostly in Africa even at this era of global “project democracy”. For most of
human history, attaching “military” to “rule” would have been redundant because almost
all political regimes in large societies of the pre-modern period fused military, religious,
economic and monarchical powers2. Indeed, military rule is not a recent phenomenon
because it pre-dated even the praetorianism of Roman times and was rampant during the
feudal era as well as regular interregnum in the constitutional struggles of many societies,
including Africa and other Third World countries especially after their political
independence3. However, the separation of military and civilian powers and the
development of professional and bureaucratic armed forces in European states in the 18th
and 19th centuries gave birth to the contemporary understanding of military rule.4

Consequently, military interventions in politics are very common both in democratic


and totalitarian regimes5. The “national guard” function of the military makes it very
1
B. Badie et al, "Military Rule". (International Encyclopedia of Political Science, 8, 2011)p8
2
Ibid
3
O. Igwe, "Politics and Globe Dictionary". (Aba: Eagle Publishers, 2005)p.43
4
B. Badie et al, "Military Rule". (International Encyclopedia of Political Science, 8, 2011)p8
5
M. Onder, "What Accounts for Military Interventions in Politics: A Cross-
NationalComparison.<http://www.eakademi.org/incele.asp?konu=WHAT%20ACCOUNTS
%20FOR%20MILITARY%20INTERVENTIONS%20IN%20POLITICS:%20A
%20CROSSNATIONAL%20COMPARISON&kimlik=1285708304&url=makaleler/monder-
8
powerful and sometimes unquestionable when it begins to exert an almost unrestrained
influence in government; the height of which may involve direct takeover of the
institutions of governance. Even in developed countries, although the military is
restricted to national defense and obedience to the civil authority, it still exerts significant
influence on the government policies.6

Even in the United States, the military poses a unique set of problems for
Presidents7. Equally, no individual can have a significant effect on military budgets,
including presidents.8 The distinguishing factor between the military of advanced
societies and those of the less developed societies is the strict adherence of the former to
military professionalism imbued with national protection and the inability of the later to
curtail its gluttonous political adventure and concentrate in the assigned function of
national protection. The military in less developed societies have, for flimsy reasons and
excuses, infiltrated the political administrative machineries of the states without
correspondingly fulfilling their messianic propaganda embedded in their reasons for
military takeover.

Military Rule

The concept of military rule has often been mistaken with military government or
military regime. However, there are significant differences between and among the three
interrelated concepts. Mlitary rule is the Governance by the armed forces and the
consequent reversal from civil to military superordinacy, usually through an
unconstitutional takeover of power in a coup d’état that ousted the legitimate civil
authority, with the pretext of either restoring law and order, re-instituting legality within
the system or eradicating any other social ills affecting the state.9

This definition is important for two reasons: one, it is important for its emphasis on
military super ordinacy in governance and two, the process by which military power to
govern could be secured brute force. Nevertheless, military rule can appropriately be

1.htm>. Consulted 19 October 2013.


6
Ibid

M. H. Halprin, "The President and Military" In N.C. Thomas, ed. The Presidency in
7

Contemporary Context (277-289). (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1975)p.5
8
Ibid
9
O. Igwe, "Politics and Globe Dictionary".p.268
9
defined as an act or process of administering a given polity by the Armed Forces which
often is acquired via the seizure of state power through force. This implies that military
power to govern is acquired not through the ballot papers but through the barrel of guns.
So, it is a power to govern a people without their consent.

Military Government

A government is that agency of the ruling class that is charged with the
responsibility of exercising state power on behalf of the whole classes. 10 It can also be
referred to as the institutionalized agency for the legitimate administration of the class
society, in effect, translating into a structured organization of power for the realization of
the objectives of the ruling class, and the major instrument of its practical exercise by its
governing elites within the state.11 However, it is important to note that not all
administrations are legitimate, as this last definition would want us to believe. Military
government therefore, refers to the administrative agency managed by the Armed Forces
and charged with the responsibility of exercising state power on behalf of the whole
social classes in a given polity. It is therefore an institution of governance that is derived
unconstitutionally.

2.2. Military Intervention in Nigeria Politics

As a prelude, '''Republicanism' is a political system in which the citizens participate


in deciding the laws to govern them and choose their leaders and their tenure 12". Also, in
the Constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria (1979), the federation shall, subject to
any Act of the National Assembly made in that behalf equip and maintain an Army, a
Navy, an Airforce and such other branches of the armed forces of the federation as may
be considered adequate and effective for the purpose of:

(a) defending Nigeria from external invasion;

(b) maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its borders

from violations on land, sea and air;

(c) suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities


O. Nnoli, "Introduction to Politics". (Enugu: Snaap Press Ltd, 2003)
10

11
O. Igwe, "Politics and Globe Dictionary". p.40

R. F. Ola, "Nigeria Political System Inputs, Outputs and Environment," (Benin City: Ambik
12

Press, 1995)p.107
10
to restore order when called upon to do so by the president,

but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an Act

of the National Assembsy;and

(d) performing such other functions as may be prescribed by an

Act of the National Assebly.13

In the Nigerian context, the military status-quo is grossly incapable of creating a


stable political order because the contradictions within it, made manifest in the intra-elite
jostling for power and penchant for coup plotting, continue to erode the confidence
reposed in top military leaders, as impartial arbiters and champions of social change14.

The 1960 independence constitution of Nigeria and subsequent documents clearly


spelt out the fundamental principles on which the governance of Nigeria should be
based.15

Plato summed up the constitutional functions of the military as affording protection


from aggressions and embankment on aggressive acts both designed to ensure the
preservation of a sovereign state.16

Corroborating the position of earlier authorities, functionally, Major General Agunyi


Ironsi and subsequent military heads of state havd no business in direct politics 17. The
1960 independence constitution of Nigeria and subsequent constitutional documents
clearly spelt out the fundamental principles on which the governance of Nigeria should
be based. The reasons why a section of the members of the Nigeria armed forces have
abandoned their traditional responsibility, which is to deal with the country's external

A. Nwankwo, "The Military Option to Democracy-Class Power and Violence in Nigeria


13

Politics" (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd, 1997)p.62

A. O. Ikelegbe. "Politics and Government: An Introduction and Comparative Perspective",


14

(Benin City: Uri Publishing Ltd, 1995)p. 215


15
Ibid
16
Ibid

A. O. Oronsaye, "Nigerian Government and Politics," (Benin City: United -City Press, 1997)p.
17

242
11
enemies in favour of civil duties, can be extracted from the nationwide broadcasts by the
leaders of each of the seven successful coups18.

According to the Nigerian ArmyAct of 1955, a soldier is only required to obey


commands which are lawful, then a soldier who assists his commander in either thwarting
the peoples' verdict or in perpetuating military rule is himself committing a treasonable
felony. Since a lawful act must not be against international laws and norms, military
government in whatevcr guise is clearly an illegality which the new lound political
awareness ol Nigerians engendercd by years of military misrule, would not condone. 19
Power belongs to the people. It is their right; it is an inheritance, a trust and legacy 20.
Power is not a charitable donation conferred on a people across the foot mats of
obeisance and servility. That is why those who hold it without the people's consent have
mord. to answer in the course of history, because they are living on borrowed time.

Military regime is usually erroneously regarded as a corrective, one, instead of being


seen as an unnecessary aberration in democratic political life and thus lays greater
emphasis on a quick-result yielding administrative system which is achieved through
dictatorial enactment of decrees and edicts.21 The anti-democratic "command structure"
of the military (similar to colonial structure of domination and exploitation) is greatly
emphasized in the management of public affairs to the detriment of a culture of
democratic learnıing.

The country' s military subsystem has been performing political functions which are
clearly outside its class or station it's not out of place to foreclose the above mentioned
conditions, which to a large extent, though illegal and ultra- vires, but, foster military
incursions into the acts of governance.22

The British colonial administration is to blame for the unfortunate situation. The
British policies of divide-and-rule, led to the regionalization of politics during the

18
Ibid

T. Ajajeoba, "Theoracle as the Obstacle", Lagos: Tell Magazine, 6, February 7., 2004)p. 3
19

M. H. Kuka. "The Western Beaten Cliche Holds True", (Lagos: Tell Magazine, 38, September
20

16, 2004) p. 38
21
A Ehizuelen, "Introduction to Nigerian politics," (Benin City: Ambik Press, 2005)p.17

R. Osagie,"The military and politics", Benin City: The Nigerian Observer, March 26,
22

1996)p.263
12
colonial era. It also provided the basis for the post-independence politics of the first and
second republics. The British colonial masters divided the country into three regions and
deliberately drew the political map of Nigeria to make the emergence of a nationally
accepted leadership difficult.23

The introduction of Richard's Constitution in January 1947 had already laid the
foundation of tribalism in Nigerian politics leading to the emergence of regional and
tribal parties. There are historical and class dimensions to the evident reliance on
structures and direct violence as twin instruments in the struggle for power and resources
in Nigeria politics. The Nigerian political system was "established and consolidated by
soldiers". Government's sponsored pillage of the local economy was made possible by
colonial army and the instruments of raw violence which it displayed arbitrarily.24

In providing its own maintenance and in protecting the interests of entrepreneurs and
settlers within the victim society, the profit-propelled colonial regime elevated violence
to the level of principle. Direct military conquest and occupation, forced labour,
compulsory taxation and the forceful seizure of land by government backed joint-stock
companies became the objective indicators of violence by which the colonial cult was
defined. The violence, by which the colonial structures were imposed, now became an
integral part of the post-colonial system. Not only did it show its imprint on the
institutional framework, but it also entered human relations25.

The turbulence of colonial rule depicted the initial and primary misfortunes of
Nigeria as a transitional society, oscillating between an aversion to the past and a crude
inclination towards the essential features of a new but bestial political system. In the
words of Dorgu the Bayelsa State Governor's Special Representative in Abuja,

Since 1960 when Nigeria became independent, fashioning a set

of ideals to maximize potentials of multinationalistic and with

ethnic composition of the country has defied a prototype of

Western democracy. The first democratic republic was riddled by

23
M. Onuorah, "Politics of leadership", Lagos: The Guardian, September 12th, 2000)p. 25

A. Nwankwo, "The Military Option to Democracy-Class Power and Violence in Nigeria


24

Politics" (Enugu: Fourth Dimension Publishing Co. Ltd, 1997)p.7


25
Ibid, p.69
13
colonial historical antecedents, political pundit's belief that the

country was not allowed to rid itself of the usually teething

problems that accompany new found freedom which

undermined our traditional institutional values and system.26

Enahoro's submission of reasons for military interventions to include the weakness


of African political parties and politicians who succeeded the colonial administrators,
especially as regards their inexperience in the critical skill of public administration,
diplomacy and economic management.27 That African nationalists underestimated the
degree of military support they required to rule their fellow countrymen; that nationalist
leaders failed to appreciate the extent to which colonial powers would arrange their
departure on terms most favourable to their own economic, diplomatic, military and other
interests.28

Some of the causes of these coups may be traced to constitutional factors. 29 For
instance, in Nigeria, the constitutional legacy bequeathed by Britain created a situation in
which the North had a permanent dominating position over the other three southern
regions30. From the factors mentioned above, it is unarguable that the loophole or political
gap occasioned by the departing colonial intrigues left not only an enabling environment
but a fertile ground for misunderstanding among the emergent Nigeria state. This no
doubt brought chaos, anarchy and upheavals among the elites and the political class
which allowed the military to assume the false status of being the unequalled umpires.
Their presence in political administration is a clear negation of their constitutional roles
as contained in the Nigeria Constitutions of 1960, 1963 and.1979.31

26
S. Dorgu. "Democracy on Trial in Nigeria", (Lagos: The Guardian, 2008)p.8

A. O. Oronsaye, "Nigerian Government and Politics, Benin City: United -City Press,
27

1997)p.248
28
Ibid

K. B. C. Onwuibiko, "History of West Africa," (Aba: Educational Publishers, 1973)p.391


29

30
Ibid
31
Ibid
14
Corruption and other vices by the politicians of the First Republic (1960-1966)
provoked the militant majors in the Armed Forces to overthrow the Tafawa Balewa
government32. An often quoted section of the broadcast by Nzeogwu Chukwuma was that
mutineers have to intervene to save Nigeria from "ten percen ters and VIP's of wastes
who made the country look big for nothing in international circles 33". The financial
misdemeanours some of the politicians committed were considered scandalous enough to
bait the soldiers to strike. Akpata stated thus:

For various reasons, the corporate existence of the armed forces

is threatened or a feeling of futility is engendered in them; there

is the tendency to shed the 'conservatism' for direct intervention

in politics as in Nigeria in 1966. Rampant military coups are due

to egoism and what we may identify as sheer «Methodism" on the

situation, the attitude of the military in politics can.only be self-

serving, far.from any sense of dedication or patriotism which the

military and their apologists have always professed.34

This focus presupposes that the motivational basis of a military putsch must not be
ascertained from their class character, concrete ideological orientation, leanings and
action because military coups are a politically salient mechanism. The apolitical tradition
of the armed forces is fake and does not explain anything particularly because soldiers
constitute a viable mechanism with which electoral processes are rigged and the people
defrauded. Beyond that, the top military brass are members of the governing class. They
have a serious stake in preserving the dominant configuration of power and interest.35

S. Darah, "The Military High Command and Corruption in Nigeria," (Lagos: Imprint Publishers
32

Ltd, 2001)p.17
33
Ibid

T. Akpata, "Anatomy of Military Coups" (Lagos: The Guardian, January 10, 1994.)p.27
34

A. Nwankwo, "The Military Option to Democracy-Class Power and Violence in Nigeria


35

Politics. p.94
15
The history of military coups in the country reveals that except for the January 1966,
when the then acting President, Dr. Nwafor Orizu asked for military intervention in view
of the political horizon of the time, all other military interventions have been organized
by them and they execute their action by pointing accusing fingers at their civilian
counterparts. Whatever may be the justification for military involvement in politics, it is
clear that the Nigerian military elites have abandoned the task for which they have
sufficient training and expertise in favour of one over which they lack the requisite
wherewithal.

The travail of democracy in Nigeria is enormous. The military continues to


dominate the political scene; Nigerians have been ruled.by their elected representatives
for only a brief spell. Like the praetorian guards, the military has been on the watch,
waiting for pitfalls. As the Ibrahim Babangida experience shows, once in power, the
military is reluctant to transit to civil rule. The causes of military interventions in politics
to include "threats to the military's corporate interest through reduced resource allocation,
interference and poor equipment and welfare.36 Others are the personal ambitions and
interest of key military officers, weakness of political leaders and political parties, ethnic
conflicts and tensions, elimination of political opponents, idleness of military officers,
and reliance of civil leaders on the military as repressive instruments.37

Other factors for military interventions are loaded in internal dynamics of the
officer's corps. As they are unable to accommodate and tolerate abuses of power, the
army intervenes to tidy up the mess and to create political order or stability. 38 Jang quoted
Olusegun Obasanjo as saying that corruption has grown bigger with every new regime
including his corruption has become a national malaise and how we should solve it,
Nigerians must decide.39

The military must not only be subjected to civil control, it must be thoroughly
overhauled and weeded of all politicians and rogues who hide behind the uniform to seize
power and plunder the nation.

A. O. Ikelegbe. "Politics and Government: An Introduction and Comparative Perspective", p.


36

216
37
Ibid
38
Ibid

D. Jang, "The myilitary now Enjoys Power"., (Jos: The News, 5, February 7, 1997)p.17
39

16
Some fascinating causes of military control of governmental apparatus and
involvement in governance to include:40

(a) that the military feel their corporate interests to be threatened

as the meager resources of society were dissipated on socialist

experimentation;

(b) tha the leaders might consider the civilian authority as

interfering with military sphere.of responsibility and therefore in

defence of military professionalism as determined by the military

itself they would act against the civilian government;

(c) the personal ambition

or fears of the key military officers in relation to civilian

authorities is one of the strongest reasons for intervention in

political governance.41

Without prejudice to the opinions of other contributors on reasons.for the military


incursions into-Nigerian political administration, both the political elites and men of the
armed forces, innate and political ambitions of the armed forces are the fundamental
causes of military intervention.

Political development in Nigeria has been characterized by intolerance for political


mistakes, wranglings and schism by political elites and above all, the total absence of an
enduring political culture. When the civil power structure ceases to govern effectively,as
was the case in 1966 and 1983, the army intervenes, thereby making it clear that the army
which casts its own vote with gunshots is a viable political force; a political party
indeed42! The incapacity of party government to resolve vexing internal problems,
including inability to mobilize the home front, that is, support of national goals has on

A. Mazrui. "How Culture Forces and Shapes the Modern World. (Lagos: The Guardian, July 4,
40

1994)p.94
41
Ibid
42
A. Nwankwo, p. 104
17
many occasions led the military to do more than provide coercive power for use against
external enemies; whereas the army would have allowed the civil government to learn
from its mistakes. That is the hallmark of democracy the world over.43

The Western Region crisis of 1962 constituted one of the immediate causes of the
subsequent military coup of January 1966. The military further adduced corruption,
oppression, inefficiency, tribalism, nepotism, wastes and divisiveness which characterize
political leadership as well as weak political cultures, low mobilization, low
institutionalization and general absence of civil order as causes why they struck.

The issue of dealing with the military is in the hands of Nigerians themselves
because Nigerians are part and parcel of the problem 44. The proper role of the military is
to be servants of the people and not their masters. 45 If the citizens are able to gather their
thoughts together by giving the elected people the chance to survive by being patient, the
military will not have any excuse to take over government. In a state where there is no
recognized government, even members of the military establishment associate democracy
with anarchy, insubordination and lack of discipline among civilian politicians, and are
afraid that democracy might undermine their authority. In such a situation, the army
became the logical, coherent force to assume leadership.46

The January 15th 1966 military coup was the culmination of a series of violations of
the spirit of the Nigerian constitution by political leaders of the three major political
parties. That after the attainment of independence, the struggle for power and control of
the federal government raged with reckless abandon, and the leaders ignored all rules of
democratic processes. As a result, the major political upheavals already mentioned ripped
the foundation of the federation between 1962 and 1965 and prepared the way for a
military putsch.

The selfishness and irresponsibility of members of the so-called political class have
to do with the concentration of power at the centre. 47 The struggle to control the centre

43
Ibid

I. Gambari, "Nigeria is Now a Nation of Scorn". (Lagos: Tell Magazine, 22, May 29, 1995)p.26
44

45
Ibid
46
Ibid

A. Akinola "Federalism and Democracy in Nigeria", (Lagos: The Pan African Weekly, 41,
47

January 19-25, 1998)p.49


18
takes precedence over democracy per-se. In Nigeria, politicians have been known to have
openly campaigned for the overthrow of elected government once they have lost out in
the race to control the centre. The prospective coup-maker simply takes advantage of the
politicians' lack ofunity of purpose.48

The reasons for frequent interventions of armed forces in politics in West African
states and Nigeria in particular, are complex and diverse. 49 They are categorized them
under political, constitutional, socio-economic and foreign relations factors 50. Opposition
parties lack patience of long waiting and have often resorted to unconstitutional methods
of vaulting into power; that soldiers hate to see politicians using governmental authority
for their selfish ends and abuse of elections politicians. The struggle by among political
leaders themselves, official and tribalism in politics therefore necessitate military
interventions51. Also, schism among the political elites, violent political rivalry, etc, are
the major causes of the frequent military incursions in Nigerian politics stunted the
democratic process since political independence. Further, the corruption, which have idea
of cross-carpeting and hob-knobbing with the winning winner takes all syndrome are
indicative of the absence of a parties and the stable political culture in Nigeria. Until
Nigeria elites and politicians learn to exercise restraints, the nascent quest for an enduring
democracy will be an illusion.52

2.3. The Coups, and Counter Coups in Nigeria

There have been a large number of successful and failed military coups in Nigeria
since the country's independence in 1960. A military coup is the violent or non-violent
overthrow of an existing political regime by the military. Between 1966 and 1999 the
army held power in Nigeria without interruption apart from a short-lived return to
democracy between 1979 to 198353

 The January 1966 Nigerian coup d'état

48
Ibid

K. B. C. Onwuibiko, "History of West Africa" (Aba: Educational Publishers.1973)p.389


49

50
Ibid
51
Ibid
52
Ibid
53
Ibid
19
The January 1966 coup was carried out by mostly Igbo army officers including Major
Kaduna Nzeogwu, Major Emmanuel Ifeajuna among others. The casualties of the coup
included the Prime Minister Alhaji Abubakar Tafawa Balewa, the Sardauna of Sokoto Sir
Ahmadu Bello, the Premier of the Western Region Samuel Akintola, the finance minister
Festus Okotie-Eboh among others.54

 The July 1966 Nigerian counter-coup

Popularly known as the Nigerian Counter-Coup of 1966, in July, saw Major-General


Gowon succeed Ironsi. It lasted from 28 July – 30 July 1966.55

 The 1975 Nigerian coup d'état

General Yakubu Gowon was ousted in a palace coup on 30 July 1975, which brought
then Brigadier Murtala Muhammed to power as Head of State.

 The 1976 coup

Popularly and erroneously known as the 'Dimka Coup', this bloody and aborted coup led
to the assassination of General Murtala Muhammed. Upon General Muhammed's death
and the foiling of the coup, then Lt General Olusegun Obasanjo became Head of State.56

 The 1983 Nigerian coup d'état

The Nigerian Military Coup of December 31, 1983 was led by a group of senior
army officers who overthrew the democratically elected government of President Shehu
Shagari. Participants included Majors General Ibrahim Babangida and Muhammadu
Buhari, Brigadiers Ibrahim Bako, Sani Abacha, and Tunde Idiagbon. Major General
Buhari was appointed Head of State by the conspirators.

Ibrahim Bako (then Director of the Army Faculty at the Armed Forces Command
and staff College, Jaji) and acting GOC 1 Mechanised Division, Kaduna was tasked by
the coup conspirators with arresting President Shehu Shagari presumably after Shagari's
Brigade was killed.by Col Tunde Ogbeha. Author Max Siollun notes that Bako was

54
Ibid
55
Ibid
56
Ibid
20
chosen for the arresting role because Bako's father was a personal friend to Shagari.
Unknown to Bako was the fact that the coup plot had leaked to President Shagari whose
guards were on high alert. After arriving at the Presidential residence with an armed
detachment to arrest the President, Bako was shot dead, while sitting in the passenger
side of a UNIMOG utility truck, in an ensuing fire fight between troops from Bako's
detachment and the Brigade of Guards soldiers under the command of Captain Augustine
Anyogo. The UNIMOG utility truck that Bako was killed in is on display at the Nigerian
Army Museum in Zaria, Nigeria.

The sole men who headed the coup of 1983 were:

Major General Muhammadu Buhari* (General Officer Commanding, 3rd Armored


Division, Jos) others who assisted him are

Major General Ibrahim Babangida (Director of Army Staff Duties and Plans)

Brigadier Ibrahim Bako (Brigade Commander),

Brigadier Sani Abacha (Commander, 9th Mechanized Brigade), Brigadier Tunde


Idiagbon (Military Secretary, Army)

Lt Colonel Aliyu Mohammed (Director of Military Intelligence)

Lt Colonel Halilu Akilu, Lt Colonel David Mark

Lt Colonel Tunde Ogbeha

Major Sambo Dasuki (Military Assistant to the Chief of Army Staff, Lt-General
Wushishi)

Major Abdulmumuni Aminu

Major Lawan Gwadabe

Major Mustapha Jokolo (Senior Instructor, Basawa Barracks - Zaria)

Major Abubakar Umar.

 The August 1985 Nigerian coup d'état

21
This was a palace coup led by then Chief of Army Staff, Major General Ibrahim
Babangida who overthrew the administration of Major General Muhammadu Buhari.57

 The alleged Vatsa coup of December 1985

Hundreds of military officers were arrested, some were tried, convicted and eventually
executed for conspiring to overthrow the Babangida administration. The conspirators
were alleged to have been led by Major General Mamman Jiya Vatsa.58

 The 1990 Nigerian coup d'état attempt

Major Gideon Orkar staged a violent and failed attempt to overthrow the government of
General Ibrahim Babangida.59

 The 1993 Nigerian coup d'état

Facing pressure to shift towards a democratic government, Babangida resigned and


appointed Chief Ernest Shonekan as interim president on 26 August 1993. Shonekan's
transitional administration only lasted three months, as a palace coup led by General Sani
Abacha overthrew the Interim government. In September 1994, Abacha issued a decree
that placed his government above the jurisdiction of the courts, effectively giving him
absolute power60

2.4. The Impact of Military Rule on Democracy in Nigeria

At the end of the colonialism in Africa, it was natural, that the political culture of the
colonialist had been imbibed. The political institutions that were developed or borrowed
were democratic ones61. However, Africans were learning the operations of these
institutions across the continent when suddenly in 1952, the Egyptians military overthrew
King Farouk62. This singular phenomenon unleashed a ‘bush-fire’ effect in Africa, for

57
Ibid
58
Ibid
59
Ibid
60
Ibid

E. O. Frank and W. I . Ukpere "The Impact of Military Rule on Democracy in Nigeria"


61

(Article in Journal of Social Sciences, December 2012)p.287


62
Ibid
22
Sudan followed in 1958, Algeria, 1965, Congo (Brazzaville), 1963, Zaire (Congo-
Kinshasa) 1965, Central African Republic, 1966; in West Africa, Togo, 1963, Ghana
1966, Benin (Dahomey) 196363. The contagious effect of the coup d’etat continued with
Nigeria taking her twice in January 1966, 1975-1979 1983, and 1993. This phenomenon
continued in Nigeria until 1999. The military had ruled for thirty (34) years out of 49
years of Independence at this time. Quantitatively many Nigerians especially the youths
had lived military than civilian rule.64 The implications of these extensive years of
military rule on democratic practices, is of course the display of military tendencies in a
democratic arena. These tendencies are enunciated in the subsequent section of this
project but how did the military come to dominate the Nigeria socio-political
environment for so long a period? An examination of the some causal variables is
imperative at this point.65

The causes of military intrusion into the Nigerian polity could be grouped into
Ecological and Societal factors, Extra-Societal and Contagious factors, Intra-military or
Socio-Military and Miscellaneous variables. The African armies have been described as
tending to be the most detribalized, westernized, modernized, integrated, and cohesive
institutions in their respective states. The army is usually the most disciplined agency in
the state. It often enjoys greater sense of national identity than other institutions. Its
technical skill, including the capacity to coerce and to communicate, is the most effective
agency in the country and a more vivid symbol of sovereignty than the flag, the
constitution, or the parliament…66. This is perhaps because they come from different
cultural backgrounds and are wielded together in the army with symbol to look up to.

It is instructive to note that these categories overlap and relate to military


intervention at the level of supplantment. After supplantment or coming into office of the
military, the norms affect the society and values of the military governance. This is
transmitted through a number of channels. These are examined below.

Military Values and Norms

63
Ibid
64
Ibid
65
Ibid

E. W. Lefever "Spear and Scepter: Army, Police and Politics in Tropical Africa".( Washington
66

DC:Brookings Institute DC, 1970)p220


23
The military as an organization has its values and norms, which has made it a unique
organization. These values and norms are transferred to the larger society during military
governance. The adoption of these values and norms within a democratic setup is hereby
refereed to the dialectics of military governance. In the exposition of the military values
and norms, it was observed that the military is a puritanical organization, and that the
training which men receive in this institution and subsequent military experience imbues
them with austere attitudes and a high sense of discipline and responsibility 67. The
universalistic character of achievement orientation in the award of honors and promotion
is said to be endemic in the military. Thus, the values of Puritanism, discipline, rationality
and achievement orientation of the military are assumed to be much more directly
relevant to change and development68 as against the ascriptive value orientation of the
rest of social organizations in African society. It is perhaps these values, which enabled
the military in Nigeria to be able to execute the various National Development Plans in
Nigeria. It is no news that the best National Development Plans in Nigeria were
conceived and executed by the military. They gave birth to the most enduring
infrastructures in Nigeria today.

It has been said that the education and training, which soldiers receive, make them
professional men. It is also assumed that such acquired values or attributes are
transferable into situations or occupational roles, which may not be entirely military. The
third assumption is that in the process of governing a civilian society, these military
values are transmitted to the rest of the society in a way that regulates societal behavior
and consequently changes such societies69. The point here is that, the long years of
military rule, made the boundaries between the barracks and the civil society so
permeable that the ethos of the military affected the entire society. The outcomes were
that, at the entry of the civil government, politicians had adapted to the command system
of the military, which they have been subjected to considerably.

Effects of Military Rule on the Society

Consequent upon the long years of military governance, the obvious outcome would
be militarized political culture, manifested in the political behaviors of the dramatis
S. Huntington "Political Order in Changing Societies" (New Haven :Yale University Press,
67

1968)p 33

O. Odetola "Military Regimes and Development: A Comparative Analysis in African


68

Societies" (London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1982)


69
Ibid
24
personae in the democratic arena. The Nigerian civic culture was eroded and militarized
culture imbibed. Thus, the rule of operation became that of order, combat rather than
dialogue, disregard of court orders and violation of human rights became the tenets of
militarized civic culture in a democratic dispensation. These values and norms are
unknown to democracy. Democratic values include; spiritual or moral principles, ideals
or qualities of life that people favor for their own sake. Democracy is rooted in several
key values, or norms. These values supply democracy’s moral content and give its
institutions and procedures their normative purpose, as Sodaro 70 said, these include;
freedom, inclusion, equality, equity, welfare, negotiation and compromise.71

The Dialectics of Militarism: Manifestations

It is instructive to recall that the researchers had pursued the argument that the
militarization of governance engenders a militarized civic culture the outcome of which is
militarized psyche. It is herein stated that there is a significant incongruence between the
internalized military culture, character, and the demands of democratic process 72. As a
result, the democratic arena is seen as an extension of the barrack. This point is given
credence to with the dominance of exmilitary men as politicians who are yet to be
recivilianized. This explicates the behavior of politicians since 1999. The behaviors are
the direct correlates of the dialectics of military governance 73. The discussions of the
manifestations of these behavioral dispositions are illustrated below;

i. Sometimes between April and July 2002, the President amended the capital
provisions of the 2002 Appropriation Act by reducing the capital budget to 44%
without forwarding the said amendments to the national Assembly for passage in
violation of section 80(4) of the 1999, constitution that act amounts to gross
misconduct.

M. J Sodaro, "Comparative Politics-A Global Introduction". (New York: McGraw Hill, 2008)
70

71
Ibid
72
E. O. Frank and W. I . Ukpere "The Impact of Military Rule on Democracy in Nigeria"
(Article in Journal of Social Sciences, December 2012)p.288
73
Ibid
25
ii. About the month of July 2002 a Presidential order was issued purporting sameto
constitute an amendment to the revenue allocation Act which action amounted to
the violation of section 162(1) and (2) section 315 of 1999 constitution, which is
equal to a gross misconduct, and a violation of the constitution as amended.
iii. From1999-2002 the government had consistently indulged in extra budgetary
expenses contrary to section 80(2), (3) and (4) of the 1999 constitution which is
a clear violation of the constitution which going through the due process; with
the expenditure on the national stadium in excess of appropriated sum, excess
expenditure on the national identity card from N5.9 billion to N9.5 billion above
the sum approved in the 2001 and 2002 Appropriation Acts respectively. The
authorization of the purchase of 63 houses and their furnishing for Ministers in
the year 2002 to the tune of N3,019,153,178.06 without any budgetary
provisions in the 2002 appropriation Act..This was when the National Assembly
was not on recess.
iv. In the year 2000, he authorized the deployment of military troops to ‘Odi’
Bayelsa State to massacre innocent citizens without recourse to the National
Assembly contrary to section 217 (2) C of the 1999 constitution which requires
first for some conditions to be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly
for the.use of the military in that regard.
v. In the year 2001, the President without lawful ‘authority authorized the
deployment of military troops to ‘Zaki Biam’.(Benue State) which occasioned
the murder of innocent citizens and the destruction of properties, contrary to
section 217(2) C of the 1999 constitution as amended which requires firstly for
some conditions to be prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly for the use
of military in this regard’ (Djeba 2002).
vi. The development of military social classes: Military rule inadvertently leads to
the formations of military social classes (military and civilian). As the military
become the dormant social groups in the society, they allocate economic
advantages derived in Nigeria from contracts and allocation of oil blocks to
themselves/colleagues. In and out of the military, this social group possesses
enormous wealth from these sources to influence the course of politics in
democratic dispensation. The military acquire their prejudices and ideas
ingrained in the minds of the dominant social classes, the civil servant and the
business classes. A class is thereby formed to hold on, for them to drop the
military uniform. The implication is that in the nearest future the ex-military
men will continue to be those with enormous resources in politics than their
civilian counterpart. This is the ‘embourgeoment’ of the military class courtesy
26
of Professor Ali Mazrui74 writing on the Ugandan military. This political culture
is as well dialectic of militarism in democracy.

In the wake of the attack which was unleashed on ‘Odi’ community in ‘Bayelsa
State’ by a detachment of the Nigerian troops in November 1999, the National Assembly
failed to call the President to order, but kept mute in cold complicity. The invasion of
‘Zaki Biam’ in Benue state took place shortly afterwards, both houses of the national
assembly also kept mute on the issue. This was one of the outcomes of militarized psyche
which cherished obedience without complain. Thus, Nigerian parliament in violation of
democratic principles did and said nothing of these warrior traditions in civil
dispensation.

The principles of extra budgetary expenditure, a dominant phase of the democratic


setting is but a legacy of profligacy bequeathed to the civilian regime by former military
government. In a democratic dispensation, such must give way to budgets that seriously
addresses the crisis of grinding poverty in the midst of plenty. The politicians have
serious contempt for the principle of separation of power. This explains why from the
President to least of the politicians, they basked in the adaptation of authoritarian measure
to the resolution of issues, which requires democratic dialogue and negotiations. This
explains why they see politics as ‘War which is a continuation of politics’ in the words of
Chairman Mao Tse-Tung.

Another dimension of the militarized culture appeared in the making of the


Constitution, where all the wide, arbitrary and dictatorial powers hitherto exercised by the
former military officers are conferred on the President, Governors. These are not only
subject to abuse but are subversive of the people’s will.75

An illustration of the militarized civic culture was ably demonstrated during the
cases of impeachments recently. The Federal government raised the allegations,
substantiated and adjudicated it. It consisted in the main of: raise the allegations, pretend
not to know what the constitution prescribed in such matters, invite the Economic and
Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) to substantiate the allegation no matter how vague,
pick up some officials of the state legislature to sign impeachment notices, or throw them
A. A. Mazrui. "Soldiers as traditionalizers: Military rule and the Re-Africanization Africa". In:
74

A A Mazrui Leiden (Ed.): The Warrior Tradition in Modern Africa. Netherlands: E. J. Brill,
1977)
75
E. O. Frank and W. I . Ukpere "The Impact of Military Rule on Democracy in Nigeria"
(Article in Journal of Social Sciences, December 2012)p.288
27
into jail, create a semblance of insecurity in the place, set the place ready for emergency
rule, sponsor protests against the governor, hold-up state fiscal allocation, sponsor some
indigene of the state often those with political ambition to speak against the governor,
take away some members of the legislature indoctrinate them and bring them to the
assembly under arm escort to effect the impeachment. 76This was the scenario used
against DSP Alamesieaya- former Governor of Bayelsa and Plateau states respectively.77

The explanation for the above situation is derived from the low of political culture
which Nigeria belong, characterized by; low level of political secularization in which
ethnicity rather than issues determine the course of action; Politics is not about an
alternative view point of how to resolve issues but on where he comes from; in this
system, the end justify the means used, no matter how unlawful the action deployed; 78
Military rule receives great reception with the civil society because they are weakly
organized to pose any opposition to it. In this socio-political setting, the military
institution is looked upon as an alternative political party.

Dialectical Impacts of Militarism

The military is at the level of supplantment or governance. Due to consistent rule, its
ethos permeates the society, and many people internalized the military ways of
conducting businesses, in military vocabulary etc. The militarization of the social forces,
led eventually to the economic underdevelopment because the military were not trained
for governance in several respects. The economic underdevelopment leads to discontent
in the system and a praetorian social situation is created. Social upheaval and discontent
characterized this state of affairs but were suppressed. 79The soldiers also coup and the
circle is vicious. The salient impact of militarization in Nigeria included but not limited
to the ones discussed below as:

i) Militarisation of Vocabulary of Engagement

It is a known fact that the command structure of the military gives no room to
dialogue, negotiation, arbitration and conciliation. The absence of this in social discourse
76
Ibid
77
Ibid
78
Ibid
79
S. Huntington "Political Order in Changing Societies" (New Haven :Yale University Press,
1968)p 33
28
brought to the fore the principles of ‘with immediate effect’ in the conduct of social
engagement. Today, Nigerians employ the concept of ‘with immediate effect’ in social
discourse. The military were trained to war, maim and die or survive in the process. In
the current dispensation, the President had enjoined the members of his party to regard
the election as a ‘do or die affair’. This is reminiscent of militarization of semantics and
aberration of democracy.80

ii) Freedom of Expression

The military governance is a one party phenomenon where dissent is an anathema. A


dissenter is promptly detained. ‘Miniere Amakiri’ a chief correspondent of a Nigerian
Newspaper (Nigerian Observer) had his head shaved just because he wrote a piece that
was distasteful to the former Governor of Rivers State ‘Alfred Diete Spiff’, in Port
Harcourt81. In 1978, the military proscribed the ‘Newbreed Magazine’ and many
journalists suffered humiliation as cited above. This dialectics were replicated in 2007 in
a democracy thus; in 2006 May 14, during the debate for the tenure elongation (Obasanjo
wanted the parliament to approve a 3rd term for him). African Independent Television
(AIT) aired the debate live, thereby scaring way those who would have debated in favor
of the elongation. The State Security Service (SSS) assaulted the AIT reporters and
stopped and destroyed the master tape of a documentary entitled ‘a tenure elongation’. In
April 2007 during the election acclaimed to have been widely flawed, the StateSecurity
Service (SSS –the Secret Police) again invaded the studio of the station during the airing
of ‘a documentary on Nigerian political development’.82

In post-Obasanjo era, Yar Adua had re-enacted same with ‘Channels Television’ and
‘This Day Newspaper’ respectively even with the claim of due process and the Rule of
Law’ as the mantra of his regime. This was an indication that beyond 2007, the military
values pervaded the polity. The dialectics of the garrison state in a democratic setting is
explicable.

S. Decalo. "Coups and Army Rule in Africa: Studies in Military Style." (New Haven: Yale
80

University Press, 1976)p.33

B. ABadejo, "Democracy: An Appraisal of the Nigerian Military" (Conference Proceedings of


81

the 5th Annual Conference of the Nigerian political Science Association, 1978)p 34
82
E. O. Frank and W. I . Ukpere "The Impact of Military Rule on Democracy in Nigeria"
(Article in Journal of Social Sciences, December 2012)p.289
29
iii) Political Intimidation

Intimidation is a weapon of warfare deployed by the military to psyche the enemy. It


is a psychological approach to warfare. This has been extrapolated into the democratic
milieu. The Economic and Financial Crime Commission (EFCC) has been used as a
mechanism to intimidate political opponents to toe the same part with the executive.
Impeachment had been used as an instrument of intimidation. This had been successfully
employed in the impeachments in’ Oyo’, ‘Plateau and Anambra’ states respectively.83

iv) Uni-cameralism

The military as an institution is not disposed to another center of order or dissention.


It has no pedigree to tolerate ‘opposition’ or dissention of view on its directives. This has
been imprinted in the psyche of Nigerians and practiced in the democratic arena. This
was manifested during the infamous moves towards the third term of governance 84. Any
person perceived as a stumbling block was intimidated with the Economic and Financial
Crime Commission (EFCC), administrative panel report and gazette and the declaration
of the office of the vice President vacant, which processes were all declared as
constituting ‘functus officio’ (procedural irregularity) by the courts.85

Finally, the conduct of democratic elections in Nigeria bore a mark of warfare and
events in a garrison state. During elections military men are made battle ready, policemen
are seen everywhere, their sights engendered fear in the civil populace. Secondly,
international borders are always closed. Considerable contradictions marked the
preparation and execution of the elections as some candidates’ names were/would not be
included in the ballot papers. This was a further attempt to shrink the democratic space. It
matters little whether an ex-military officer is the President or not. The values were
learned by all from the military and would always be replicated in the democratic arena.

83
Ibid
84
Ibid
85
Ibid
30

You might also like