WHICH OF THE MILITARY INTERVENTION THEORY THAT BEST EXPLAIN MILITARY INTERVENTION IN NIGERIA AND REASONS

TABLE OF CONTENT

1. INTRODUCTION

2. WHAT IS MILITARY INTERVENTION

3. THEORIES THAT EXPLAIN MILITARY INTERVENTION IN POLITICS

§         Historic Missionary theory

§         Organizational format theory

§         Custodian theory

§         Socio economic development theory

4. THORY THAT BEST EXPLAINS MILITARY INTERVENTION IN NIGERIA POLITICS AND REASONS.

5. RECCOMMENDATIONS

6. CONCLUSION

7. REFERENCES

INTRODUCTION

In most developing countries, there is a disruption of the civil military equilibrium usually assumed in liberal democracies. In liberal tradition, the military is insulated from politics and subject to civilian control. In several developing countries, however, the military has not only intervened in the political process and overthrown the constitutional civilian authority, but it also often has established its supremacy over elected politicians. Even in those countries where the military has become almost a permanent feature of politics, military rule is still considered an aberration and symptomatic of a malfunctioning political system. In Nigeria, military rule was usually seen as a "rescue" operation necessary to save the country from civilian ineptitude. Military rule was not expected to last long; once the rescue operation was complete, the military should return to the barracks where they belonged and leave the governing to civilian politicians. The problem, however, was that although military officers accepted this rationale, military rule usually became self-sustaining.

            Military interventions in politics are very common both in developing democratic or totalitarian regimes. There are various theories about the causes of military interventions; historical missionary, organizational format theory, custodian theory, and socio economic development theory.  This paper aims to answer the question of “What theory is best to explain military intervention in Nigeria and the reasons for the theory.

WHAT IS MILITARY INTERVENTION

Military intervention according to Fawole (1994) is defined as the conscious act of displacing and supplanting an existing political order, a government, by soldiers with the objective either of governing or influencing the political affairs of the country in particular direction determined largely by the interventionists themselves. It is directed at the political system of the state or its agents involving the threat or actual use of force to accomplish certain predetermined objectives which may be political, economic, social or even military.

THEORIES THAT EXPLAIN MILITARY INTERVENTION IN POLITICS

Explaining military interventions is not an easy task, because they are results of a complex mix of historical, political, economic, personal, military, social, ethnic, and cultural factors. Although some authors argue that military interventions are random phenomena unrelated to the structural characteristics of societies and international settings, many structural theories see the causal relations to explain military interventions in politics. Different approaches can be brought together in several categories which include historic missionary, organizational format theory, custodian theory, and socio economic development theory.

Historic missionary theory: this historic missionary theory sees itself as the optimum king which mission is to save the country. It mission is to see that the country advance politically and economically. What enables them actualize this mission is its unitary nature and its organized structure, military intervenes in situations that temper with the stability of the country.

Socio-Economic Development theory: One of the most common arguments relates the propensity of military intervention with socio-economic development. Finer (1988) argues that the density of military interventions is more likely to decrease with increased socio-economic development status. Nations with high socio-economic situations have higher urbanization, industrialization and literacy level, and so have increased mass participation into the social activities (Putnam, 1967). Socio-economic development creates awareness of political events and capacities for political actions. In other words, it increases the number of potential political actors and diffuses increased political resources to these actors who would be willing and able to sustain civilian institutions. On the other hand, the industrialization diminishes the propensity for military interventions since the increased socio-economic complexity puts public administration beyond the skills of armed forces.

Custodian Theory: According to Dike (2003:102), custodian theory states that the military is the custodian of the nation’s constitution and as such it feels impelled to intervene when constitutional propriety is being violated”. Huntington (1969) stressed that the military will intervene when the civilian government lacks legitimacy due to inadequate electoral support and ineffective executive.

Organizational format theory: this attributes military as an organizational structure which is organized and hierarchical in nature, commands are obeyed and they are given with this characteristics, it is easy for them to intervene and take over politics.

            The stronger the military’s resources, either as a percent of state resource or relative to the national economy, the weaker the institution of civil society and thereby the greater the probability of military interventions. Several studies have found that larger armies and those with greater claims to the government revenues have been more coups prone. A second view argues that a centralized chain of command, military discipline, and extensive communication make military officers a cohesive group, capable of organizing effective seizure (Finer, 1988).

THORY THAT BEST EXPLAINS MILITARY INTERVENTION IN NIGERIA POLITICS AND REASONS.

In this paper we answered the question of “What accounts for the difference in the incidence of coups across countries?” Our findings strongly support the custodian theory as having the most significant impact on the incidence of coups in Nigeria politics; custodian theory state that the military is the custodian of the nation constitution, and, so, as such, it fee.

ls impelled to intervene when constitutional propriety is being violated. Huntington asserted that the military would usually be welling to return to the ballacks after a dispute has been settle. Thus, the military only acts as the guardian to check the activities of corrupt civilian administrators and to ensure political stability. Huntington stressed that the military will intervene when civilian government lacks legitimacy due to inadequate electoral and an ineffective executive (Huntington 1969).

               Thus, the praetorian army will tend to replace weak and unstable political regimes. Finer (1969) argued that the most important cause of military intervention is the low or minimal political culture of the society concerned. According to Huntington and Finer, the interpretation of military coups relates to the characteristics of the Nigerian army. Finer, more than Huntington stressed the role that corruption plays in intervention; in Nigeria some members of ineffective civilian leadership have been found to be corrupt and inept and to pursue self seeking ambition. In contemporary society, however, the military is no longer content with enjoying proxy leadership. With a corps of relatively well-educated  and highly-trained manpower and in the context of the prevailing crisis  in Nigerians development, the military may see itself as the rightful heir to state power and as the legitimate recipient of public resources, as Marx foresaw.

            A guardian coup is where the military intervene in order to rescue the state from civilian mismanagement” the men in uniform consider it their duty to replace their incompetent civilian predecessors (Thomson, 2004:134). The military men see themselves as the custodian of the state and its constitution and this clearly is what has been obtained in Nigerian politics which led to the first Military coup in Nigeria, where the military felt the civilian regime was failing the nation and as an alternative and custodian they became involved in Nigerian politics.

       The incapacity of party government to resolve vexing internal problems include the inability to mobilize the home front in support of national goals and this may lead the military to do more than provide coercive power for use against external enemies. Their role in this regard as the ‘custodians’ has been especially important in those newly emerging nations where civil institution and sense of national identity have not yet had sufficient time to develop, (Ayam, 2004:289). This shows a clear example of what was obtained in Nigeria immediately after gaining her independence and what led to the demise of the first republic and the first Military coup. “In many cases, the military then (eventually) live up to their promise of returning to the barracks, once they consider that discipline has returned to the political process. Despite this political upheaval, the ‘guardian’ usually leaves the society and the economy largely unchanged. Nigeria could be considered to have experienced several coups in the post-colonial period” (Thomson, 2004:134)

RECCOMMENDATIONS

Nigerians should prevent the military from coming back to politics by encouraging the enthronement of a nascent democracy. Our politicians should be ready to render a selfless service to the nation. The idea of seeking political office for selfish personal gain is not doing the nation any good. Nigerian electorates should vote in only credible candidates during elections and be ready to defend their votes.

CONCLUSION

A military is an organization authorized by its greater society to use lethal force, usually including use of weapons, in defending its country by combating actual or perceived threats. The military may have additional functions of use to its greater society, such as advancing a political agenda and the military intervene in politics because its sees itself as the custodian of the constitution.

REFERENCES

Ayam, J. (2004) Introduction to Politics; Ogun: Covenant University Press.

Dike, R. A (2003) Public management and Sustainable Development in Nigeria:      

           (Military and Bureaucracy Relationship); England: Ashgate Publishing Limited.

Fawole W.A. (1994). The Military and the future of Democracy in Africa, Benin City:   Hima & Hima Ltd.

Finer, S.E. (1988). The Man on Horseback, (2^nd Edition), Bouldr, CO: Westview Press.

Huntington, S. P. (1969). "Reforming Civil Military Relations", Journal of           Democracy, October 1995, (9-17).

Putnam, D. (1967). Toward Explaining Military Intervention in Latin-American Politics.             World politics. 20:1 (pp.83-110).

Thomson, A. (2004) An Introduction to African Politics (2^ndedt); New York:    Routledge Taylon and Francis Group.

HUNTINGT ON VIEW ON MILITARY INTERVENTION IN POLITICS

            Huntington’s school of thought argues that military interventions are likely to occur in states lacking institutionalized political cultures, which also suffer economic hardship and social division. This school of thought also known as ‘environmentalists’ argue that,  the state’s socio-political and economic environment is responsible for military take over. In other words, coups occur in an unstable society especially the developing countries. This school postulates that socio-political environment can lead to military intervention as the case of Algeria in 1992 where the military intervened because it feared the outcome of multi-party elections where an Islamic movement was poised to win and form the next government. The military conscious of its personal interest opted to abort the democratic process and take over power itself. (Huntington 1969).

            Similarly, political institutions like political parties, pressure groups, legislature and judiciary etc, are weak and therefore create the platform for the military to intervene. Social divisions especially ethnic and class conflicts in the continent has also led to military intervention in the last two decades. For example, Countries such as: Algeria 1992, Burundi 1996, Central African Republic 2003, the Gambia  1994, Mali 1991, Niger 1996-1999, Nigeria 1993, Lesotho 1991-93, Guinea Bissau 2003, Sao tome and Principe1995, Sierra Leone 1992, 96, and 97 have all witnessed military intervention.

             From the above assertions one can say that, African regimes are vulnerable to crisis because they tend towards personal rule rather than legal-rational structures, consequently as soon as violence becomes the defining mechanism of regime change in Africa, the military then becomes a key player in politics.  Huntington argued that, in a state lacking authority, competing social groups employ means which reflect their peculiar nature and capabilities, the wealthy bribe, student riot, workers strike, mobs demonstrates and military intervention;           therefore, in the absence of strong institutions the military come into power. The military is forced to intervene in the political process in the absence of other social groups with the ability to govern effectively, (Huntington 1969).