Development of any country is directly related to the system of government in that country. The system of government determines the leadership structure that evolves in the concerned country. Leadership is everything. Dr Munroe defined leadership as the ability to influence people through inspiration not intimidation or manipulation. A management expert defined leadership as the relationship that exists when one person induces or influnces others to work voluntarily together to achieve organisational objectives. Any group of people who influence their citizenry through intimidation or manipulation are not leaders in the strictest sense of the meaning of leadership. They are dictators.

Military coup is nothing other than power armed robbery or put simply, snatching power at gun point. Since it is armed robbery, the penalty is death when the power robbers are caught or when the military incursion fails. Like any other criminal venture, if it succeeds, the perpetrators simply lord their criminality over others because every successful revolution begets its own legality. Revolution is the coming into existence of a legal order in a manner not anticipated by the existing legal order. All violent military incursions came into existence through revolutions because no existing democratic legal order provides for dictatorial leadership. In Nigeria, Section 1(2) of the 1999 Constitution states that “the Federal Republic of Nigeria shall not be governed, nor shall any person or group of persons take control of the government of Nigeria or any part thereof, except in accordance with the provisions of this constitution”. The military usually suspends this section of the Constitution when they usurp power and govern by decrees, which are the orders of the Head of State codified in writing, and which they deem superior to the Constitution.

The impact of disorganising an existing legal order violently often leads to unsavoury circumstances. In Nigeria, the January 1966 coup led by Major Kaduna Nzeogwu led to the killing of some prominent leaders from some sections of the country, which was followed by a July 1966 counter coup, killing some leaders from other sections of the country, which led to the pogrom and killing of innocent Nigerian citizens in the streets of Nigeria, for being perceived to share ancestral relationship with the January 1966 coup plotter, which eventually led to the Nigerian civil war between 1967 to 1970 that inflicted heavy casualties on both sides and claimed millions of lives. The resultant effect of this first revolution tells you how dangerous, slippery and destructive revolutions can be. Revolutions are easily misunderstood, misconstrued and manipulated to suit the power equation of the executors at any point in time. It is hardly done for the general good.

Whatever maybe anybody’s opinion about Nzeogwu’s coup, the mere fact that it unleashed military dictatorship on the country with its attendant consequences of destroying our federal structure and replacing it with a unitary system of government makes it an unacceptable way to change a democratically elected government. The military was eventually found to be worse than the civilian government in the art of governance prompting Prof Aluko to say that any country that gives its government to the military is finished. Chief Obafemi Awolowo also concluded that the worst civilian government is better than the best military government. We agree because no matter how benevolent any military regime is, the success of any military coup instantly turns the whole country into a very huge prison yard where every citizen is a prisoner that is not entitled to any basic freedom or human right. It was recorded in Uganda, during the reign of Idi Amin as Head of State, how he assured his people that he will guarantee them freedom of speech but cannot guarantee them freedom after speech. This was a stern warning to every citizen that the Head of State will severely punish any citizen that embarrassed him with speeches no matter how truthful or not the speeches were. The military makes the law and implements it. In the countries where they hold sway, there exists no Legislature. The People’s interests and opinions are irrelevant. The military junta is the all knowing Lord of the Manor whose words must be obeyed no matter how dangerous and egregious they may be. This is why the news of a flurry of coups across Africa, recently, is troubling.

In order to trace the causes and probably the solutions to military incursions in Africa, let us examine the great strides of successes that Nigeria has recorded in democracy since 1999, which is the opposite of dictatorship, because embedded in those successes are the solutions and antidotes to military incursions in Africa. On inception of democracy in 1999 and immediately after the swearing in of President Olusegun Obasanjo at the Eagle Square, the entire military officers that ever served or tested political offices, especially former military Governors and Ministers, were officially retired from the army. They were dubbed to have become too rich, political and corrupt for efficient professional military career. This purge left the army with an array of professionals insulated from the politics of Nigeria and guaranteed the stability of the fourth republic. It then follows that the attempt at diarchy which enables democratic leaders to share power of government with military dictators cannot work. Mali tried it and failed. The military junta simply sacked the democratic partners and assumed full leadership. It is absurd that the left-over Parliament in Mali proposed five-year transition plan for the incumbent military leader which has been utterly rejected by Ecowas. Diarchy was also tried in Sudan and it failed because of the insatiable appetite for power by the ruling military junta. They simply sacked their democratic partners and returned to full scale military rule. When you kill a snake, you cut off its tail, because head or tail, the snake is dangerous.. There is no place for military officers in a democratic governance. They are trained to kill not to administer a people through inspiration. What is going on in Myanmar today in far away Asia should teach African Countries a lesson that the military should be restricted to the barracks to defend the territorial integrity of their countries not to interfere in the smooth running of the democratic government of their countries.

Related News

By 2003, Nigeria democratic experiment was so tender that any powerful impact would have truncated it. The electoral institutions were weak and the civil societies have not evolved with strength. The populace were largely timid and the leaders essentially not experienced in democratic nuances. Some of the colleagues of the military who tasted political power were still in the military. Despite the fact that the 2003 elections organised by President Obasanjo were a sham, Nigerians allowed democracy to stand, because President Obasanjo ensured the enforcement of social justice through the faithful implementation of the Federal Character principle in the highest echelon of the government. For instance, the federal principal political elective posts in Nigeria are six in number. They are the posts of the President, Vice President, Senate President, Speaker of the House of Representatives, Deputy Senate President and Deputy Speaker of the House of Representatives. In 1999, efforts were made, despite the fact that they were all elective positions, to share these six posts among the six Geo-Political Zones in Nigeria. President was from the South West, Vice President from the North East, Senate President from the South East, Speaker from the North West, Deputy Senate President from the North Central and Deputy Speaker from the South South. In 2003, during the second term of Obasanjo, the same pattern was maintained. This is called Zoning or equitable sharing of political public offices by the political parties among all the federating units in the country and it resulted in peace and in the sustenance of our nascent democracy during that period, despite rigged elections.

Other African countries that are having recurrent military incursions should borrow a leaf from Nigeria in this regard. They should identify their federating units, especially their minorities and share offices among them, despite the numerical strength of each federating unit. Feeling of marginalization and injustice normally trigger military interventions, especially where the minority tribes populate the armed forces. Democracy must ensure the security and welfare of all citizens, not just the majority, to ensure that it is the government for the people not for the majority.

In 2007, President Olusegun Obasanjo’s second tenure elapsed by the Constitution. Rather than step down, he allowed ambition take the better part of him and initiated Executive Bill to enable him amend the Constitution to extend his tenure beyond the 8-year term limit allowed. Nigerians vehemently opposed his third term bid and struck it down. He was compelled to exit. This saved our nascent democracy because if he had succeeded, some errant military officers would have deposed him violently because his success would have inevitably led to violent protests. Other African countries and leaders must learn a lesson from this because the greatest threat to democracies in Africa and cause of military incursions is the concept of sit-tight Presidents. From Sudan to Libya to Tunisia to Ivory Coast to Burkina Faso to Guinea to all nooks and cranies of Africa, the story is the same of leaders who were democratically elected but refused to go at the expiration of their tenure but instead manipulated the people and the Constitution to rule forever until they were violently overthrown by military force. If you doubt us, ask President Paul Biya of Cameroon. The Legislature must not succumb to the caprices of an over ambitious President to extend his tenure and the people must rise against such move because eventually they will pay the price of military incursion as this will lead to lack of development of their country when they will be treated as a pariah nation by the civilised world and hit with merciless sanctions.

As our democracy started getting stronger, successive administrations started improving on our elections. In 2015, President Goodluck Jonathan conducted a relatively free and fair elections and lost. He called his opponent, President Muhammadu Buhari and congratulated him on his victory even before the announcement of the final result. This dounced the tension in the land and foreclosed the possibility of any military person capitalising on possible violence in the polity that would have resulted from his refusal to quit power and forcefully overthrow him. African Countries and leaders must learn to conduct free and fair elections and accept the result of the election in the interest of peace and development of their country for without peace, there cannot be any meaningful development.