In most developing countries, the civil-military balance normally assumed in liberal democracies is disturbed. In the liberal tradition, the army is isolated from politics and subject to civilian control. In several developing countries, however, the military has not only intervened in the political process and overthrown constitutional civil authority, but has also often established its supremacy over elected politicians. Even in countries where the military has almost become an integral part of politics, military rule is still seen as an aberration and symptomatic of a flawed political system. In Nigeria, which is typical of the scenario just presented, the military regime was generally seen as a “rescue operation” necessary to save the country from civilian incapacity. The military regime was not expected to last long; Once the rescue operation was over, the army had to return to the barracks to which it belonged and leave the government to civilian politicians. The problem, however, was that although military officers accepted this logic, the military regime generally became autonomous. Such demands may backfire. Some military regimes have inadvertently stimulated a flowering of opposition cultural and political activities as artists, students, religious leaders, dissidents and others speak out in new ways against the authoritarianism of the military regime. Trying to impose martial norms of behavior on unruly populations can create rare moments of political electricity in which large numbers of people are united to challenge the generals.
The popularity of Fela Anikulapo Kuti, the outspoken musician and critic of the military regime in Nigeria, or the participation of many of the most popular artists of the time in the “Direct Elections Now” (Diretas Já) campaign in Brazil in 1984 are examples of this. The military are hierarchical organizations specialized in the use of force, so it is often assumed that military personnel govern by force and only by force. Military rule, however, often involves complicated attempts to gain some degree of approval from the governed. Some military regimes, for example, have allowed the election of national and subnational representative bodies. Others have used more or less independent judicial authorities to approximate or simulate the rule of law. Still others have promulgated constitutions and sometimes even respected them. Nevertheless, the application of military law to civilians and the threat or application of extrajudicial repression (such as torture, enforced disappearances and killings) by state security forces under military regimes are commonplace. While Nigeria`s political future looked rosy with the victory of Chief Abiola in June 1993, Abacha`s seizure of power and the reign that followed have cancelled out most of the country`s achievements since 1960. At no time since the mid-1960s have so many people questioned Nigeria`s existence as a political entity. When the leaders did not call for the breakup of the country, they advocated a confederation with a weakened center and even a divided army and police. Opposition forces have called for a national conference to renegotiate the foundations of Nigerian unity. The country`s international image has been damaged as it has suffered harsh condemnation and isolation.
The military dictatorship in Nigeria was a time when members of the Nigerian Armed Forces took power in Nigeria from 1966 to 1999 with an interregnum from 1979 to 1983. The military was often able to come to power through coups with the tacit support of the elite. Since the country became a republic in 1963, there have been a number of military coups in Nigeria. An exception to this recurring pattern of factions, however, was the Ogoni (Mosop), who managed to voice their grievances in the Ogoni “Bill of Rights” in October 1990. [17] They worked closely with the Campaign for Democracy and drew the attention of the United Nations and the support of international NGOs to protest against the Abacha regime. Despite these combined efforts, the army responded with violent force, terrorizing villages and holding a corrupt trial without right of appeal; This led to the hanging of 9 activists in 1994. [18] This shows that even if the combined support called into question the military regime, the military had the totalitarian power to suppress this opposition. Military prerogatives established under military rule may last longer than the military regime itself. These prerogatives may include the army`s control over the police or a role for the army in internal public security; a special responsibility for “public order” or the rule of law conferred on the armed forces in the Constitution, giving them constitutional cover for political intervention; a fixed allocation from the State budget for the army; higher salaries for military officers than for other public servants; control of the intelligence apparatus; control of civil activities (e.B civil aviation); economic privileges (such as special export and import licences, direct control of state-owned enterprises, etc.); and the military veto on various decisions beyond national defense. It is not uncommon for post-military regimes to find that they need to obtain military approval for a variety of state activities. However, a stable civilian government is not synonymous with a reduction in military prerogatives, and indeed civil-military peace is sometimes bought at the cost of not reviewing or reforming any of these legacies of military rule. The regional rivalries that played such a large role in the repetition of coups were the result of colonialism, which created an artificial state encompassing several different ethnic groups.
These different ethnic groups were represented by regional parties, which guaranteed that “none of the parties could govern Nigeria alone, and. . . This conflict was only a matter of time. [16] Therefore, there was no centralized opposition to military rule; Therefore, when a coup took place, it was just another faction of the military regime. In 1986, a transition program was announced, which was due to expire in 1990 (later extended until 1993), and the military controlled the process. The government created two political parties, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the Republican National Convention (NRC), and produced its programmes for them; Freely formed parties were not registered and many politicians were banned from politics. The 1979 constitution was amended by a constituent assembly, and a series of elections were then held for local government advisers, governors and legislators.
After Abacha`s death, political activity flourished with the formation of many parties. Of these, three emerged that could participate in the elections: the People`s Democratic Party (PDP), the Alliance for Democracy and the All Peoples` Party. In January-March 1999, a series of elections were held in which council members were chosen for local governments, legislators for state and federal assemblies, and state governors. The presidential election took place in February and was closely monitored by a team of international observers. Olusegun Obasanjo of the PDP, who, as head of state, had overseen the last transition of military rule in 1976-79, was declared the winner. The economic impact of the military regime has been catastrophic. The traditional agricultural economy was abandoned and they became extremely dependent on oil exports, resulting in an unstable economy due to frequent fluctuations in oil prices. [19] Babangida`s regime was characterized by “blatant incompetence and unbridled waste and mismanagement, privatization of public functions and resources, neglect of non-oil sectors, and misplaced priorities.” [20] Essentially, the focus has been on the private sector rather than the well-being of the nation. As a result of the military economic policies of the 1980s, 45% of foreign exchange earnings were spent on debt servicing, and there was very little growth. This has led to an increase in poverty, crime, child abuse, disease, institutional decay and urban degradation. [20] The instability and discontent caused by these policies has been one of the causes of the constant pattern of coups. Military regimes also tend to promote militarism or the glorification of war and military prowess.
Many military leaders see politics as a continuation of the war by other means. As a result, they use violence to resolve conflicts. Military leaders can demand that civilian organizations develop hierarchical and disciplined configurations along military lines. Obasanjo was sworn in on 29 May 1999. A new constitution was also promulgated this month. Nigerians, tired of long and crisis-prone military regimes, welcomed the change of government, as did the international community. In the first civilian-administered elections since the country`s independence in 1960, Obasanjo was re-elected in 2003, although there were numerous reports of irregularities in voting. After Abacha`s death in 1998, General Abdulsalami Abubakar took power and ruled until Olusẹgun Ọbasanjọ (via the 1999 presidential election) became head of state again, ended the junta and founded the Nigerian Fourth Republic.
.