Chapter 6

Chapter 6: Military Rule and Civilian Pressure: A Complex Dance of Power

Introduction

Nigeria's history is punctuated by a recurring theme: the intervention of the military in civilian governance, followed by periods of intense civilian pressure for a return to democratic rule. This cyclical pattern, a "complex dance of power," has shaped the nation's political landscape, economic development, and social fabric. Chapter 6 examines this intricate interplay, analyzing the underlying causes of military interventions, the characteristics of military regimes, the strategies employed by civilian actors to resist authoritarian rule, and the enduring legacies of these periods on Nigeria's democratic trajectory. We will explore specific examples of military coups, the policies implemented by various military regimes, the activities of pro-democracy movements, and the eventual transitions back to civilian rule. The chapter will also delve into the persistent challenges that stem from this history, including the erosion of institutional trust, the prevalence of corruption, and the fragility of democratic norms. By understanding this complex dance, we can better appreciate the ongoing struggle to consolidate democracy in Nigeria and address the root causes of instability.

The Roots of Military Intervention: A Fertile Ground for Coups

Nigeria's experience with military rule is not an anomaly, but rather a reflection of deeper systemic issues that have historically created a conducive environment for coups. These factors range from political instability and ethnic tensions to economic mismanagement and perceived corruption within civilian governments. Understanding these root causes is crucial for comprehending the recurring cycles of military intervention.

Political Instability and Ethnic Divisions

One of the most significant contributing factors to military intervention in Nigeria has been the persistent presence of political instability, often fueled by deep-seated ethnic and regional divisions. The First Republic (1960-1966), Nigeria's initial experiment with parliamentary democracy, was plagued by intense political rivalries between the major ethnic groups – the Hausa-Fulani, Igbo, and Yoruba – and their respective regional power bases. The struggle for control of the federal government and its resources led to widespread electoral malpractices, political violence, and a breakdown of law and order.

As Richard Joseph notes in Democracy and Prebendal Politics in Nigeria, "Prebendalism, the intense struggle for access to and control of state resources, has been a major feature of Nigerian politics since independence. This has often manifested along ethnic and regional lines, exacerbating political instability."

The 1966 coup, which brought Major-General Johnson Aguiyi-Ironsi to power, was a direct consequence of this political instability. While ostensibly aimed at restoring order and curbing corruption, the coup itself was perceived by some as being biased towards the Igbo ethnic group, further exacerbating ethnic tensions. This perception, coupled with Ironsi's unification decree, which centralized power and abolished the regional structure, fueled resentment in the Northern region and ultimately led to the counter-coup in July 1966, which brought Lieutenant-Colonel Yakubu Gowon to power.

Economic Mismanagement and Corruption

Economic mismanagement and widespread corruption have also played a significant role in undermining the legitimacy of civilian governments and creating a pretext for military intervention. The discovery of oil in the late 1960s transformed Nigeria's economy, but it also created new opportunities for corruption and rent-seeking. Civilian governments were often accused of diverting public funds for personal gain, awarding contracts to unqualified cronies, and neglecting the needs of the majority of the population.

The oil boom of the 1970s, under the regime of General Yakubu Gowon, saw a massive influx of petrodollars into the Nigerian economy. However, instead of being used to develop infrastructure, diversify the economy, and improve the living standards of ordinary Nigerians, much of this wealth was squandered through corruption and mismanagement. As Karl Maier observes in This House Has Fallen: Nigeria in Crisis, "The oil boom was a curse rather than a blessing for Nigeria. It fueled corruption on a grand scale and created a culture of dependency on oil revenues."

This economic mismanagement and corruption created widespread disillusionment among the population and provided the military with a justification for seizing power. Military leaders often presented themselves as being more disciplined, efficient, and less corrupt than their civilian counterparts, promising to restore order and accountability to government.

Weak Institutions and Lack of Accountability

The weakness of state institutions and the lack of accountability have also contributed to the vulnerability of civilian governments to military intervention. The judiciary, the legislature, and the civil service have often been undermined by political interference, corruption, and a lack of resources. This has made it difficult to hold government officials accountable for their actions and to ensure that the rule of law is upheld.

The military, on the other hand, has often presented itself as a more disciplined and effective institution, capable of providing stability and order in the face of civilian incompetence and corruption. This perception, coupled with the military's control over the means of coercion, has made it a powerful force in Nigerian politics.

The legacy of colonialism, which bequeathed a centralized and often authoritarian state structure, also contributed to the weakness of civilian institutions. The colonial administration prioritized control and extraction of resources over the development of democratic norms and institutions. This legacy has made it difficult to establish a culture of accountability, transparency, and respect for the rule of law in post-independence Nigeria.

The Character of Military Regimes: Authoritarianism and its Facets

Military regimes in Nigeria have exhibited a consistent pattern of authoritarianism, characterized by the suspension of democratic institutions, the suppression of civil liberties, and the concentration of power in the hands of the military leadership. However, the specific characteristics and policies of these regimes have varied depending on the individual leaders and the prevailing political and economic circumstances.

Suspension of Democratic Institutions and Rule by Decree

Upon seizing power, military regimes typically suspended the constitution, dissolved elected assemblies, and banned political parties. Rule was then conducted by decree, with military leaders wielding absolute power to legislate and govern. This concentration of power allowed military regimes to bypass democratic processes and implement policies without any meaningful consultation or accountability.

For example, after the 1983 coup that brought Major-General Muhammadu Buhari to power, the constitution was suspended, the National Assembly was dissolved, and political activities were banned. Buhari's regime ruled by decree, issuing a series of decrees that criminalized dissent, restricted freedom of the press, and established military tribunals to try suspected offenders.

Similarly, the regime of General Ibrahim Babangida (1985-1993) initially presented itself as being more reformist and open to dialogue, but it ultimately maintained a firm grip on power and ruled by decree. Babangida's regime implemented a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) that was designed to liberalize the economy, but it also suppressed political opposition and manipulated the transition to civilian rule.

Suppression of Civil Liberties and Human Rights Abuses

Military regimes in Nigeria have consistently suppressed civil liberties and violated human rights. Freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of assembly, and freedom of association have all been curtailed under military rule. Journalists, activists, and political opponents have been routinely arrested, detained, tortured, and even killed.

The regime of General Sani Abacha (1993-1998) was particularly notorious for its human rights abuses. Abacha's regime arrested and detained numerous political opponents, including Chief Moshood Abiola, the presumed winner of the annulled 1993 presidential election. The regime also executed Ken Saro-Wiwa, a prominent environmental activist, and eight other Ogoni activists for their opposition to oil exploitation in the Niger Delta.

According to Amnesty International's report on Nigeria during the Abacha regime, "Human rights violations were widespread and systematic, with security forces acting with impunity. Torture, arbitrary arrest, and extrajudicial killings were commonplace."

The suppression of civil liberties and human rights abuses under military rule had a chilling effect on Nigerian society. Many people were afraid to speak out against the government, and dissent was often driven underground. This created a climate of fear and mistrust, which undermined social cohesion and hindered democratic development.

Economic Policies and Development Strategies

The economic policies and development strategies of military regimes in Nigeria have varied depending on the individual leaders and the prevailing economic circumstances. Some military regimes have pursued policies of state-led development, while others have embraced market-oriented reforms. However, regardless of their stated objectives, military regimes have often been characterized by economic mismanagement, corruption, and a lack of accountability.

The regime of General Yakubu Gowon, for example, presided over a period of rapid economic growth fueled by the oil boom. However, this wealth was not used to develop infrastructure, diversify the economy, or improve the living standards of ordinary Nigerians. Instead, much of it was squandered through corruption and mismanagement.

The regime of General Ibrahim Babangida implemented a Structural Adjustment Program (SAP) that was designed to liberalize the economy and reduce the role of the state. However, the SAP had a devastating impact on many Nigerians, leading to increased poverty, unemployment, and social unrest.

The regime of General Sani Abacha was characterized by economic stagnation and corruption. Abacha's regime diverted billions of dollars of public funds into private accounts, and the economy suffered from a lack of investment and innovation.

Attempts at Legitimation and Political Transition

Despite their authoritarian nature, military regimes in Nigeria have often attempted to legitimize their rule and manage the transition to civilian governance. These attempts have typically involved creating political parties, holding elections, and drafting new constitutions. However, these processes have often been manipulated to ensure that the military retains control of power.

The regime of General Ibrahim Babangida, for example, embarked on a lengthy and convoluted transition to civilian rule that was ultimately derailed by the annulment of the 1993 presidential election. Babangida's regime created two political parties, the Social Democratic Party (SDP) and the National Republican Convention (NRC), and held elections for local government, state government, and the National Assembly. However, when it became clear that Chief Moshood Abiola, the SDP candidate, was poised to win the presidential election, Babangida annulled the results and plunged the country into a political crisis.

The regime of General Abdulsalami Abubakar (1998-1999) successfully managed the transition to civilian rule after the death of General Sani Abacha. Abubakar's regime released political prisoners, lifted the ban on political parties, and held elections for local government, state government, the National Assembly, and the presidency. The election of Olusegun Obasanjo as president in 1999 marked the end of military rule in Nigeria and the beginning of the Fourth Republic.

Civilian Resistance: Strategies for Challenging Military Rule

Despite the repressive nature of military regimes, Nigerian civilians have consistently resisted authoritarian rule through a variety of strategies, ranging from peaceful protests and civil disobedience to underground political organizing and international advocacy. These acts of resistance have played a crucial role in challenging the legitimacy of military regimes and ultimately paving the way for the restoration of democracy.

Pro-Democracy Movements and Civil Society Organizations

Pro-democracy movements and civil society organizations have been at the forefront of the struggle against military rule in Nigeria. These groups have organized protests, rallies, and demonstrations to demand an end to military rule and a return to democratic governance. They have also engaged in civic education, voter registration, and election monitoring to promote democratic participation.

The Campaign for Democracy (CD), for example, was a leading pro-democracy organization that played a key role in mobilizing opposition to the regime of General Sani Abacha. The CD organized numerous protests and demonstrations, demanding the release of political prisoners, the annulment of the 1993 presidential election, and a return to democratic rule.

Other prominent civil society organizations that have contributed to the struggle for democracy in Nigeria include the Civil Liberties Organisation (CLO), the Committee for the Defence of Human Rights (CDHR), and the National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS). These organizations have provided legal assistance to victims of human rights abuses, documented human rights violations, and advocated for democratic reforms.

Labor Unions and Student Activism

Labor unions and student activists have also played a significant role in challenging military rule in Nigeria. Labor unions have organized strikes and work stoppages to demand better wages, working conditions, and democratic rights. Student activists have organized protests and demonstrations to demand academic freedom, improved educational facilities, and an end to military interference in universities.

The Nigeria Labour Congress (NLC), for example, has organized numerous strikes and protests against military rule, demanding an end to economic austerity measures, the release of political prisoners, and a return to democratic governance. The NLC's strikes have often paralyzed the economy and put pressure on military regimes to negotiate with civilian leaders.

The National Association of Nigerian Students (NANS) has also been a vocal critic of military rule, organizing protests and demonstrations against military interference in universities, the suppression of academic freedom, and the violation of human rights. NANS's activism has often been met with violent repression by security forces, but the organization has continued to play a vital role in promoting democratic values and challenging authoritarian rule.

The Role of the Media and Intellectuals

The media and intellectuals have also played a crucial role in challenging military rule in Nigeria. Independent newspapers, magazines, and radio stations have provided a platform for critical voices and have helped to expose corruption, human rights abuses, and other wrongdoings of military regimes. Intellectuals have written books, articles, and essays that have analyzed the problems of military rule and have proposed solutions for democratic reform.

The Nigerian press, despite facing censorship and repression, has consistently challenged military rule and has played a vital role in informing the public about the abuses of power. Newspapers such as The Guardian, The Punch, and Tell magazine have been particularly critical of military regimes and have provided a platform for dissenting voices.

Intellectuals such as Wole Soyinka, Chinua Achebe, and Gani Fawehinmi have also played a significant role in challenging military rule through their writings and activism. Soyinka, a Nobel laureate, was a vocal critic of military regimes and was imprisoned for his political activism. Achebe's novels, such as Things Fall Apart and A Man of the People, have explored the themes of corruption, power, and the struggle for democracy in Nigeria. Fawehinmi, a human rights lawyer, dedicated his life to defending the rights of the poor and oppressed and was a tireless advocate for democratic reform.

International Pressure and Sanctions

International pressure and sanctions have also played a role in weakening military regimes in Nigeria and encouraging them to transition to civilian rule. International organizations such as the United Nations, the African Union, and the European Union have condemned human rights abuses and have called for democratic reforms. Foreign governments have imposed sanctions on military regimes, including arms embargoes, travel bans, and asset freezes.

The international community's condemnation of the annulment of the 1993 presidential election and the human rights abuses of the Abacha regime put significant pressure on the Nigerian government to transition to civilian rule. The Commonwealth of Nations suspended Nigeria's membership after the execution of Ken Saro-Wiwa and eight other Ogoni activists. The United States and the European Union imposed sanctions on Nigeria, including arms embargoes and travel bans.

This international pressure, coupled with internal resistance, ultimately forced the military to relinquish power and pave the way for the restoration of democracy in 1999.

Legacies of Military Rule: Enduring Challenges to Democracy

The periods of military rule in Nigeria have left behind a complex and enduring legacy that continues to shape the country's political, economic, and social landscape. These legacies include the erosion of institutional trust, the prevalence of corruption, the fragility of democratic norms, and the exacerbation of ethnic and regional tensions. Addressing these challenges is crucial for consolidating democracy in Nigeria and preventing a return to authoritarian rule.

Erosion of Institutional Trust and the Rule of Law

Military rule has significantly eroded public trust in state institutions and the rule of law. The suspension of the constitution, the dissolution of elected assemblies, and the rule by decree have undermined the legitimacy of democratic institutions and have created a culture of impunity. The military's intervention in politics has also politicized the judiciary, the civil service, and other state institutions, making them less effective and accountable.

The legacy of military rule has made it difficult to establish a culture of respect for the rule of law in Nigeria. Many Nigerians have lost faith in the ability of state institutions to deliver justice and protect their rights. This lack of trust has contributed to widespread corruption, impunity, and a breakdown of law and order.

Prevalence of Corruption and Economic Mismanagement

Military regimes in Nigeria have often been characterized by widespread corruption and economic mismanagement. The concentration of power in the hands of the military leadership has created opportunities for corruption and rent-seeking. Military leaders have often diverted public funds for personal gain, awarded contracts to unqualified cronies, and neglected the needs of the majority of the population.

The legacy of corruption under military rule has had a devastating impact on Nigeria's economy and development. Corruption has drained resources from essential services such as education, healthcare, and infrastructure. It has also undermined investor confidence and hindered economic growth.

Fragility of Democratic Norms and Political Culture

Military rule has undermined the development of democratic norms and a culture of democratic participation in Nigeria. The suppression of civil liberties, the restriction of political activities, and the manipulation of elections have created a climate of fear and mistrust, which has discouraged political participation and undermined the development of a vibrant civil society.

The legacy of military rule has made it difficult to consolidate democratic norms and values in Nigeria. Many Nigerians have not had the opportunity to participate in democratic processes and have not developed a strong sense of civic responsibility. This has made it easier for political elites to manipulate elections, engage in corruption, and undermine democratic institutions.

Exacerbation of Ethnic and Regional Tensions

Military rule has often exacerbated ethnic and regional tensions in Nigeria. The military's intervention in politics has often been perceived as being biased towards certain ethnic groups or regions, leading to resentment and conflict. Military regimes have also used ethnic and regional divisions to consolidate their power and suppress dissent.

The legacy of ethnic and regional tensions under military rule has contributed to political instability and violence in Nigeria. The country has experienced numerous ethnic and religious conflicts since independence, which have claimed thousands of lives and displaced millions of people. Addressing these tensions is crucial for building a more united and stable Nigeria.

Conclusion

The "complex dance of power" between military rule and civilian pressure has profoundly shaped Nigeria's history and continues to influence its present. While military interventions have often been justified as necessary to restore order and combat corruption, they have consistently resulted in authoritarian rule, the suppression of civil liberties, and the erosion of democratic norms. The resilience of Nigerian civil society, pro-democracy movements, labor unions, and the media in resisting military rule has been instrumental in paving the way for transitions to civilian governance. However, the legacies of military rule – including the erosion of institutional trust, the prevalence of corruption, the fragility of democratic norms, and the exacerbation of ethnic and regional tensions – pose enduring challenges to the consolidation of democracy in Nigeria. Overcoming these challenges requires a concerted effort to strengthen state institutions, promote good governance, foster a culture of democratic participation, and address the root causes of ethnic and regional conflict. Only then can Nigeria break free from the cyclical pattern of military intervention and civilian resistance and build a more stable, prosperous, and democratic future.