HISTORY OF CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS IN NIGERIA (9)*: THE CURRENT TRANSITION (continued)
By Dr. Nowa Omoigui
[SOUTH CAROLINA, U.S.A.]
The profound question of how Nigerian civilians
view their armed forces and
whether they consider it a legitimate institution or merely "accept
it" in
the absence of an option is important. One posits that it is linked to the
larger question of the legitimacy of Nigeria itself and the degree of
expression the state structure allows at local levels. The military has to
evaluate new ways of regaining trust and embedding itself in the primordial
national mindset. However, there is danger for civilians
to think that
the military has had its time and thus should be no one's priority at this
time. But this is a mistake. In reality, the military is in
complete
shambles after so many years of neglect, much of it deliberately wrought by
the destructive effect of factions of the military engaging in politics.
While other professional sectors have also suffered degradation, the
undeniable fact that the military's experience is self inflicted puts the
military in a difficult position in negotiating for its corporate
interests - although most of the individuals that were involved in previous
regimes have since been shown the way out of the military.
What this means in practical terms is that even though it does not
articulate it institutionally, some residual elements within the military
are eager for advocates in civil society. Members of civil society
and the
political elite should thus pause, hold their breaths and listen.
In all the three services, the military requisitioning system has reportedly
broken down. Instead of being supplied with logistics items, commanders are
made to purchase items. Very often, the amount allocated is insufficient, so
those involved tend to provide very little of what is actually required and
then keep some of the money for themselves. This fraudulent system has been
in existence for a long time and the military is experiencing withdrawal
symptoms because guidelines issued since the advent of civil rule have
reduced spending prerogatives. Service Chiefs, for example, can spend only
one million naira. Correspondingly, officers at lower command and staff
rungs now have lower spending limits. Ordinarily this should not be a
problem; but there is no system in place to have materiel consistently
available for units to carry out their duties. In this vacuum, the
potential exists that civil-military tension can result because of the
national sub-culture of poverty and job insecurity. Because of the absence
of transparency in Nigerian society, military officers could be put in an
awkward position to observe civil servants and politicians award contracts
to themselves and line their pockets while military units in the field
starve. So they feel shortchanged. Clearly - as was previously noted
-
the problem of widespread corruption should be more vigorously and honestly
tackled.
An important element of professionalism is job satisfaction. Different
cohorts of officers need to be objectively assessed for job satisfaction.
Further, the nuanced differences between military loyalty to the State, the
Constitution, the Government, the Regime or perhaps the "Country" or
"Nation" need to be negotiated and understood by the civilian
leadership
and the military in order to avoid ambiguity. Appropriate language
in the
Armed Forces Act and oaths of loyalty taken by servicemen at entry should
reflect a common understanding of which entity commands ultimate loyalty.
In Nigeria, state security often means 'regime security' in the eyes of the
political leadership and its supporters but such a view may not be shared
either by the larger society or by factions in the military - a reality
which has no doubt created tensions in civil-military relations in the past.
The civilian political elite should and must relate with the professional
military in defining threats and then establishing constitutional and
institutional defence policies on size and complexity, recruitment,
training, career planning, retention, retirement, budgets and acquisitions,
force deployment and power projection, rules of engagement and human rights
protection. Other important areas include defence diplomacy,
the
relationship of the military to the international community, peace
operations and regional security issues. Such discussions should clarify
the boundaries of acceptable involvement of the armed forces in national and
international politics, its relationship with the media, NGOs, nascent
environmental pressure groups and other new non-state actors.
The proposed dialogue between the military and civil society on
civil-military issues can be greatly assisted by the media if they are
appropriately trained on how it should be constructively achieved without
the usual complicating Nigerian factors of ethnicity, religion, inaccuracy
and plain mischief. There have certainly been many situations in the past
where opinions expressed in the media have affected military morale and even
operations. One very disturbing trend in Nigeria is the
tendency for
some news outlets to publish obvious falsehoods.
Lastly, sustained commitment of external actors to the democratization
process can be very important, assuming that the frequent tendency on the
part of international actors to focus on individuals rather than systems and
institutions can be checked. Often, aside from the domestic
military, it
is the only alternative check and balance to irresponsible behavior on the
part of the political class. It also has ways of exerting leverage and
enforcing international normative assumptions in the thinking and attitude
of the military to civilian supremacy.
To be continued
_________________________
* This is an excerpt of a much larger
publication by the author.
References will be listed at the end of the last installment