Democratic Stability And Military Background 

By

Michael Nwosu

saladin1410@yahoo.com

 

 

As ambitious politicians prepare to take the plunge for the 2007 presidential contest, their supporters are putting forth various theories to buttress the arguments in favour of their chosen aspirants.  In a recent newspaper interview, a prominent businessman, Mr. Sunny Okogwu, argued that General Babangida’s best credentials for contesting the presidency in 2007 is his military background.

 

In his logic, men with military backgrounds have greater capacity to guarantee the viability of our democracy and the country’s political stability.  According to Mr. Okogwu, President Obasanjo has managed to sustain our democracy this far, largely because of his military background.  In other words, as Okogwu’s kinky theory goes, our democracy would have long collapsed were it headed by a civilian president!  But how watertight is this curious logic?

 

To help us examine this logic for what it is worth, let us go down memory lane and see whether the evidence supports Mr. Okogwu’s reasoning.  For example, didn’t we have one military administration being overthrown by fellow politically ambitious officers?  How many coup attempts did General Babangida himself survive in the past, despite his disarming generosity and Machiavellianism?

 

Our neighbouring French-speaking country of Niger Republic provides another cogent example of the illogicality of Okogwu’s theory of democratic viability and political stability.  When the late Colonel Ibrahim Mainasara Ba’are transformed himself from a military Head of State to a civilian President, many citizens of the poverty-ravaged country had hoped that his self-succession would bring political stability to the country.

 

Alas, that was not to be. Instead, Colonel Ibrahim Mainasara was gunned down by the Head of his Presidential guards, Major Dauda Malam Wanke.  And the fact that Niger Republic enjoys relative political stability today without their President having a military background knocks the bottom off the arguments proffered by Mr. Okogwu.

 

In fact, even the argument that good governance is the bulwark of political stability is not always sustainable.  Despite his perception as an incorruptible officer by majority of Nigerians, such favourable reputation did not save General Muhammadu Buhari from being over thrown in December 1983 by power-pixilated fellow officers.

 

The assassination of General Murtala Mohammed in February 1976 was another valid example that good leadership alone does not necessarily guarantee political stability, whether under a military regime or a civilian administration, let alone the military background of the president.  By all accounts, the Murtala Coup of 1975 was popular; yet it did not stop another power-hungry officers from attempting to topple the Murtala/Obasanjo regime.

 

Indeed, if there is any factor that can guarantee political stability, it has nothing necessarily to do with the military background of the President.  On the contrary, the only argument which can be made is that the soldiers have reached a point of self-destruct, thereby making coup internationally unfashionable.  What curbs the lurking ambitions of military political adventurers these days is the fear of international hostility, and not because they inherently love to see democracy grow.

 

Therefore, if our democracy has survived this far, it has nothing to do with President Obasanjo’s military background.  The factors are far beyond his status as a retired General.  In a world that is rapidly growing hostile to removal of governments by undemocratic means, our soldiers know the price of disrupting democratic order for the sake of satisfying personal ambitions rather than any genuine national interest.

 

Some may, however, point out the example of General Musharaf of Pakistan that, despite the fact that he came to power by coup d’etat, Westerns nations still tolerate him.  In fact, the post-Sept 11 events and the war on terror have made Musharaf a great darling of Washington.  Therefore, the theory of military rule being unfashionable finds exception in Pakistan under General Pavez Musharaf.

 

But let us not forget that General Musharaf is literally living on his nerves!  He has already survived two major assassination attempts by Islamic extremists.  His survival this far has nothing to do with his military background or the popularity of coups.  Although coups are treated with aversion these days, the Western nations, mainly America, are willing to tolerate General Pavez Musharaf because of his co-operation in the war on terror, and not because coup is any less fashionable in Pakistan.

 

The reader has to excuse some of these digressions so that we can establish connection (if any) between a leader’s military background and survival of democracy.  What is keeping potential putchists from making any move is the fear of a hostile world that has no stomach for those who disrupt constitutional order.  It is not patriotism or love democracy that is checking the ambitions of military men wanting to capture power, but the fear of adverse international reaction.

 

It is utter rubbish, therefore, to assume that our democracy can fare better under politicians with military backgrounds.  This sophistry by those promoting General Babangida’s Presidential ambition lacks the cogency to influence even a kindergarten child.  In fact, General Babangida is the worst example of leaders who care about democracy, let alone its survival, once they are not the ones on the saddle.

 

The June 12 political tragedy of 1993, which wound up with the cruel death of Chief Moshood Abiola, was a valid evidence of the fact that General Babangida is not a lover of democracy.  Any General who could have the audacity to throw the national mandate of Abiola on the scrap heap, after a transition programme that cost the nation more than forty billion naira, cannot claim the credentials of being a lover of democracy.  Because he overplayed his hands in his attempt to succeed himself by manipulation, but failed disastrously in the bid, it didn’t matter to General Babangida if democracy succeeded or failed.

 

The theory by Sunny Okogwu and like-minded Babangida loyalists is not persuasive enough.  Apart from the spurious argument that democratic viability and political stability can only be guaranteed by a President with military background, what evidence exists that military background automatically makes you more competent than a civilian democrat?  Does military background also make a leader more patriotic than his civilian rivals?  Does being a civilian democrat make one less patriotic or less competent to run our nation’s affairs?

 

Former American President Bill Clinton had left behind an unprecedented record of economic prosperity, creating ten million jobs in eight years, bringing crime to one of its lowest levels through his Gun Control Act and greater integration of minority groups into the mainstream America.  Yet Mr. Clinton had no military background and, despite the desperate attempts by his Republican rival George Bush Senior to exploit Clinton’s draft dodging record in his student days, the American citizens still gave Clinton two terms in office.  And it was one of the wisest political decisions the American voters had ever made.

 

Surely, the seeming automatic disqualification of civilians in our country because they lack military background portends a grave danger for democracy.  Although our military constitute a tiny portion of the larger civil population of the country, it seems they are still bent on denying the civilian majority a voice about the direction our country’s democracy should go.  Were the men who fought for our country’s political emancipation having military background?  Did their lack of military background make them less patriotic or less competent?

 

Let no one be deceived by the argument that the viability of democracy and political stability depends critically on military background.  On the contrary, in our country, military background is even making democracy not to work smoothly.  The abandonment of consensus, negotiation and persuasion, which seems to be the style of Obasanjo’s leadership, is a source of worry to many genuine democrats.

 

Although former President Shehu Shagari did not have comfortable majority in the National Assembly, he was able to work smoothly with the legislature.  By contrast, despite President Obasanjo having a comfortable PDP majority in the National Assembly, he still finds it difficult to work smoothly with the legislature.  The Anyim/Na-Abba tenures were the lowest points of President Obasanjo’s political and diplomatic skills in his dealings with the National Assembly.

 

Once you bring regimentation into democracy, you mortally threaten its survival.  Imposition of one’s wishes rather than seeking consensus portends problems for democracy.  The seeming militarization of democratic institutions such as the PDP has already made civilian and military members of the party become like couples caught up in an unhappy marriage.  Should this experience not make genuine democrats distrust men with so-called military background?

`

If our men of military background want to be regarded as authentic democrats, once they find themselves in politics, they must be ready to have their way through open and fair competition or consensus instead of ramming their will down the throats of civilians.  The revered Indian Scholar, Prabhakar Padhye, argued that those who force their way do not necessarily achieve acceptance or the love of those they so conquered.  According to Padhye, “a people crushed are not a people won”.  Western military politicians such as Bob Dole, John Kerry, Kenneth Clark, John McCain and others behaved like team players in their parties and were ready to submit to party discipline.

 

In our own case, however, the retired Generals who now appear to hijack our democratic train believe that they are above the party; they must bend the party to their wishes and not the other way round.  This queer democratic order can only happen in Nigeria, which now ranks as the 8th wonder of the world, because in our country, everything moves in bizarre fashion, and the outside world is held captive audience to this parody of democracy.

Signed:

 

MICHAEL NWOSU

Federal University of Agriculture

Makurdi, Benue State