YOBE STATE UNIVERSITY

FACULTY OF SOCIAL SCEINCE AND MANAGEMENT

DEPARTMAENT OF POLITICAL SCEINCE

COURSE CODE: POL-2312

COURSE TITTLE: GOVERNMENT AND POLITICS OF AFRICAN

STATE

ASSIGNMENT QUESTION

EXAMINE THE MAJOR FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR MILITARY

INTERVENTION IN AFRICAN POLITICS

BY GROUP ONE (1) MEMBERS

U/POL/17/546
U/POL/17/560
U/POL/18/578
U/POL/18/579
U/POL/18/581
U/POL/18/599
U/POL/18/606
U/POL/18/612
U/POL/18/615
U/POL/18/617

AUGUST, 2022
INTRODUCTION

The recent military intervention in the West African state of Mali has brought into
the spotlight illegal and overt attempts by armed forces to remove sitting leaders.
Military coups were common in Africa between the 1960s and 1990s after
independence of most countries on the continent. Such ousters, however, lessened
over the years because of mass opposition to unconstitutional change of
governments. But on Aug. 18, 2020, Malian President Ibrahim Boubacar Keita and
his Prime Minister Boubou Cisse were detained, and forced to resign by the
military.

Keita came to power in 2013, and was criticized for failing law and order, and
mismanagement of the economy. The country had seen protests for several months
amid calls for his resignation. Experts say coups are prevalent in Africa due to
incompetent leadership and corruption. It is estimated that there have been at least
100 successful coups in Africa in the past four decades, with more than twice the
number of coup attempts. Most military takeovers are started by disgruntled junior
military officers, who are later supported by a few senior officers. Within days or
hours they capture power by detaining or forcing the leaders to step down – as in
the case of Mali. The countries that have recent major military takeovers are
Zimbabwe, Sudan, Burkina Faso, Gabon, Uganda and Fewer coups in Southern
Africa.
MAJOR FACTORS RESPONSIBLE FOR THE MILITARY
INTERVENTION IN AFRICAN POLITICS

Many factors contributed to why the military intervened in African politics. Some
of the factors were even perpetuated by the Colonial Masters before leaving the
countries.

For example, there is no doubt that regionalism, which was introduced during the
regime of Sir Arthur Richard, contributed greatly to the intervention of the military
in Nigeria. Looking critically at the whole activities in the first and second military
of Nigeria, you will see that it was actually a power tussle between the regions of
Nigeria. This brought dictators and tyrants into the leadership of Nigeria. The
human rights of many citizens were breached and the judiciary was unable to help
because of the obnoxious decrees and edits passed by the military. The following
are the factors responsible for military takeovers in African politics:

1. Politicization of the Army

One of the major factors for military intervention in African politics was the
politicization of the Army. Following the independence of African countries,
almost all the regions in African seeked to take total control of the military so as to
use it as weapon over other regions. The armies are seriously politicized to the
extent that appointments and promotions were based on tribe and political
sentiments rather than seniority and merit.

This largely contributed to the factor why the military intervened in African after
independence of an African country. Scholars attest that the military at that time
was used by the leaders of the different region of African countries to profit
themselves or their regions alone. This was basically why military intervention in
Africa was frequently.
2. Lack of free and fair election

After some of the African countries got independent most of the countries the
political system of the country was so damaged that even a free and fair election
could not be conducted. For example in Nigeria the election that brought Dr
Nnamdi Azikiwe and Alhaji Tafawa Balewa as leaders of Nigeria, there was so
much corruption and doubt about the result of the election.

Accordingly, it was probably impossible to say that African countries would ever
have a free and fair election because of the bad political system that some of the
countries adapt. This also made the military to intervene in African politics. The
military came under the pretext that they were trying to correct the lacunas of the
poor and corruption in the polical system of African countries.

3. Regional and tribal based political party

Let take Nigeria as an example, there is no doubt that the political parties in
Nigeria after independence equally contributed to the major factor why the military
intervened in Nigeria and African politics. Political parties after independence
were so tribalistic that only members of a particular tribe were allowed to join
certain political parties. The Nigerian National Democratic Party (NNDP) was
majorly for the East, Action Group (AG) was majorly for the west and the
Northern People’s Congress (NPC) was for the north. Each of these political
parties was indirectly fighting for the interest of their personal tribes/regions.

Thus, the military saw this as a reason why they should take over power and
correct the problem. Regional and tribal based political parties caused so many
crisis and killings in the country. Political parties opposed themselves, seeking to
take total control of the country.
4. Regional difference

Aside the points I have already mentioned, regional difference also contributed to
the factor why the military intervened in African countries. Apparently, the
Ideology and world-view of the people in the regions of African countries was not
similar. For instance, for example what happened in Nigeria the major reason why
Aguirosi was killed in Nigeria in his office was because of his idea of a unitary
system of government, which was not supported by some regions of the country.

It is triat that for the development of any country to be steady, the masses must be
driven by one Ideology. But in the case of Nigeria, that was not so. All the regions
had different Ideologies that would benefit them alone. So, the military took this as
another reason why they should take over power from civilian government.

5. Corruption

Corruption is a canker worm plaguing deep into the fabric of our society. Many
civilian leaders are corrupt to an extent of siphoning and embezzling of public
funds, for their selfish aggrandizements.

Apparently, corruption was also a major causative factor for the frequent military
intervention in African politics. The military had to take over power because the
rate of corruption in African countries was becoming unbearable. For example
Nigeria was ranked the most corrupt country in Africa. Politicians became so
corrupt and the economy of the country was mismanaged. The wealth of the
country was spent recklessly and this encouraged incessant military coups in the
country.
It should be noted that in spite of the several intervention of the military,
corruption did not reduce in the countries. The military didn’t actually want to stop
corruption. They just want to take power into their hands.

6. Political ambition of the military

The military can intervene in the politics of any country, especially when there is
growing dictatorship by the ruling party. The army can equally seize political
power when the fundamental human rights are being neglected and ignored, which
resulted from the abuse of the constitution by politicians.

I must not forget to mention that the military also intervened in the politics of
Nigeria solely because of their political ambition. After independence, the military
had the urge to take-over power from civilians, because they thought that they
should be the once to rule the country since they have the responsibility to defend
the territorial integrity and other core interests of the nation.

In light of this, they had to look for other reasons to justify their act of taking over
power by force. In my view, the political ambition of the military was the basic
reason for military intervention in Nigeria. Other reason was just used as
justification for taking over power forcefully.

7. Economic Factor

One of the reasons or factors why the military seize political power is due to
mismanagement of the economy in terms of carrying out or embarking on useless
projects which do not help or promote economic development of the country.

Again, conspicuous consumption by the politicians even when the masses are
suffering also attracts the military into politics of any state or country.
8. Hegemonism

This means that some military officers intervene in politics with the aim or
ambition of becoming Heads of State and the Commander in Chief of the Armed
Forces as well as to get promotion quickly to either a Brigadier, Major-General.

So, leadership in order to take part in sharing the national cake is one of the
foremost reasons for military intervention in politics.

9. Contagion Effect

This stands to mean that military coup d’état are contagious. This is so because if
colonels in one country overthrow the government and seize political powers,
colonels in another country will be aspired to do the same.

Therefore military coup d’état in Togo, where the first military coup d’état in
Africa was staged, has attracted other military coup d’état in Nigeria, Ghana,
Liberia, Sierra-Leone.

10. Foreign Policy Agenda

Foreign policy decisions or actions by political leaders may also attract the military
into the administration of any country especially African countries.

Sometimes, the political leaders can initiate foreign policy actions which involve
foreign military campaigns for the armed forces.

Also the foreign policy decisions of some leaders which may be based on their
selfish or personal aggrandizement, instead of benefitting the entire citizens of the
country, paves the way for military intervention in politics especially the third
World Countries.

11. Socio economic development

One of the most common arguments relates the propensity of military intervention
with socio-economic development. Finer (1988) argues that the density of military
interventions is more likely to decrease with increased socio-economic

development status. Nations with high socio-economic situations have higher

urbanization, industrialization and literacy level, and so have increased mass
participation into the social activities (Putnam, 1967). Socio-economic
development creates awareness of political events and capacities for political
actions. In other words, it increases the number of potential political actors and
diffuses increased political resources to these actors who would be willing and able
to sustain civilian institutions. On the other hand, the industrialization diminishes
the propensity for military interventions since the increased socio-economic
complexity puts public administration beyond the skills of armed forces. Gorman
(1967) states that military interventions generally take place in countries of lower
income status. According to economic dependency arguments, economically out-
dependent countries that are not self-sufficient have more coups where there is
sometimes very violent internal competition for very limited internal sources.
Likewise, Jenkins and Kposowa (1990) argue that foreign debt problems contribute
to coup.

12. Political development

The other set of variables that explain military interventions, although related but
distinct from social and economic development in a certain extent can be grouped
under the heading of political development. Strong civilian governmental and
political institutions, democratic values, and so forth can be indicators of political
development level. The modernization process created upward social mobilization,
but in some countries political development has lagged behind creating a
participation crisis that encourages military interventions. The political
development arguments attempt to underline the issue weak political institutions
and a participation overload (Jenkins and Kposowa, 1992). Huntington’s (1977)
theory of political development and decay stresses the importance of
institutionalization of political organizations and procedures. Political decay, of
which a significant symptom of military intervention, arises out of an imbalance
between social mobilization and political institutionalization. In the case of social
mobilization, if there are weak political institutions that regulate participation, it
will be unable to respond to these demands, and regulate social conflict, thereby
succumbing to military interventions and related instabilities.
CONCLUSION

Democratic regimes in new states are fragile in developing countries, whether they
were established at the dawn of independence by agreement with a collapsing
imperial power or after a period of domestic authoritarianism under military
domination. The governance based on these narrow minded representative
institutions is unlikely to function normally. These regimes cannot cope with crises
effectively: a group of military officers supported by civil servants and by deeply
disaffected popular forces often respond to a crisis by seizing democratic
representative power. The institutional design of these weak democracies
correlates with the success of military coups. Almost all of

Developing countries experienced at least one catastrophic breakdown such as,

suspension of the constitutions, the abolition of legislature, and rule by appointed
officials, and led by military officers directly. The rule by military officers
continues for a short period of time but, its impact continues and brings uncertainty
to the expectations of people in the long range. In this paper we answered the
question of “What accounts for the difference in the incidence of coups across
countries?” Our findings strongly support socio-economic development and
political institutionalization as having the most significant impact on the incidence
of coups. The socio-economic development level clearly increases the prospects
for civilian rule, and the institutionalization ensures civilian rule. The centrality of
military, out-dependence, and homogeneity of society played some role, but their
significance was weaker. The countries in Latin America are more likely to
experience coups. It is hoped that questions raised and some of the findings in this
paper will stimulate critical thoughts and further the research.
REFERENCES

1. Alesina, Ozler, Roubini, & Swagel (1996). Alesina, Ozler, Roubini, & Swagel
Data Set.

2. Easterly, Kremer, Prittchett (1988). Summers Data Set.

3. Finer, S.E (1988) the Man on Horseback, 2nd Edition, Bouldr, CO: Westview
Press.

4. Fourney D. (1977). Congress and the budgetary Process: The Politics of Military
Appropriations. In J. Brigham (ed.) Making Public Policy (65-137).
Massachusetts: D.C. Heath and Company.

5. Jenkins J.C. & Kposowa, A.S. (1992). “The Political Origins of African
Military Coups”, International Studies Quarterly.

6. Jackson, Robert W. (1978). The Predictability of Coup D’etat: A Model with

African Data. American Political Science Review.

7. Johson T.H., R.O. Slater & P. McGovan (1984). Explaining Military Coups
D’etat, 1960-1982. The American Political Science Review.