CIVIL-MILITARY RELATIONS UNDER CIVILIAN RULE IN NIGERIA 1999-2013: IMPLICATIONS FOR POLITICAL STABILITY

Click here to Get this Complete Project Chapter 1-5

CHAPTER ONE

INTRODUCTION

Background to the Study                                                                                  

Nigeria has experienced numerous coup detat since the attainment of independence in 1960. The first military coup was recorded in 1966 and subsequently in 1975, twice in 1976, 1983, 1985 and 1993.Nigeria has on three occasions transitioned from military regime to democratic rule, these are 1977, 1989 and 1999.The prolonged periods of military rule has eroded the implementation of principles of democratic civilian control of the armed forces that Nigeria had implemented at its founding.

The current dispensation began in 1999 and a measure of progress has been made. There are two aspects of the 1999 constitution of the Federal Republic of Nigeria that will remain crucial in the present democratic dispensation.  Section 217 [1]deals with the establishment and composition of the Armed Forces of the Federation and states that there shall be Armed Forces for the Federation which shall consist of an Army, Navy, an Air Force and such other branches of the Armed Forces of the Federation as may be established by an act of the National Assembly.

Section 217[2] outlines the roles of the Armed forces as [a]defending Nigeria from external aggression[b] maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its border from violation on land, sea or air[c]suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil authorities to restore order when called upon to do so by the President, but subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by an act of the National Assembly.

In spite of the democratization process, there are series of internal contradiction inherent in the nature of Nigerias federalism as demonstrated in ethnic nationalism, resource control, minority rights agitations, inter and intra party rancor and religious crisis. These situations will persist until they are properly managed or resolved. Thus, the Armed Forces will more often be called to restore peace in troubled areas. An example of this situation is the current fight against the religious and socio-political upsurge by the Boko Haram group in the north eastern part of the country.

The military rulership affects the executive, legislative, the judiciary and having enormous influence in all aspects of the Nigeria State¹. The civilian political elite may often have clamoured for democratic change, but they have always been quick to co-operate with the army after it has overthrown a democratic government. As the military becomes the dormant social groups in the society, they allocate economic advantages derived in Nigeria from contracts and allocation of oil blocks to themselves and colleagues. This social group possesses enormous wealth from these sources to influence the course of politics and democratic dispensation.

On the other hand, the long years of military rule, made the boundaries between the barracks and civil society so permeable that the ethos of the military affected the entire society². The military institution was divided in many ways, but it seemed united in its determination to influence national politics. In addition, its members wanted to remain in power at all costs, even in a civilian form after retirement. This group of military men is referred to as ambitious men in uniform.  While one is conscious of the internal role of the Armed Forces as stipulated by the 1999 constitution, such could not been said to have been professionally carried out.

This was manifested in the use to which the forces were put by the ruling government especially in elections since 1999.Some people believed that theirhuman rights were violated by the military and this has continue to raise more questions about their image. Considering Samuel Huntingtons model, has the Armed forces most especially the Nigeria Armys discipline and professionalism been compromised in the course of executing their duties. Military professionals in modern democracies believe that the protection of democratic institutions and of the individual freedom of their countrymen depends on their service ³.

Statement of the Problem

From the very inception of the civilian administration in May 1999, it became apparent that the re-establishment of stable civil-military relations remains one of its priority. Thus, barely only a few hours after he was sworn in as President of Nigeria, Chief Olusegun Obasanjo appointed new military service chiefs andannounced the retirement of 93 senior military officers who had held political posts. These actions underscore the belief that political stability in Nigeria was possible only through a fundamental reform of the countrys armed forces. As Atiku Abubakar noted, the military constitute a big problem (that) the present government plans to sanitize.⁴

In the same vain, Lt Gen TY Danjuma (rtd) said, It is time for us to move forward and lay the foundation for good governance and democracy which is built on trust between the civilian and military segments of the society.⁵ He called for the development of real professionalism in the armed forces and indicated that a joint effort involving the three arms of government is required to establish the proper conduct of government under a democratic dispensation, with particular attention paid to their relationship with the military. These efforts portray the administrations belief that the success of democracy in Nigeria depends on devising strategies that would ensure the militarys permanent subordination to civil authority.

Going by previous experience, to a large extent the survival of this democracy depends on the development of appropriate civil-military relations, which entails that the Nigerian military understands and abides by its role in a democracy. Ideally both exist for fulfilling the goals and needs of the state as spelt out in the constitution. By virtue of normal division of labour in a democratic dispensation, governance is expected to be provided by elected representatives while the military provides defence. In democracies, the formal leaders of public organizations are the politicians. Along the line, the military usurped and took over from the politicians in addition to their own roles. This pitched the civilian politicians against the military.⁶

The 1999 Constitution of Nigeria, Section 130, sub-section 2 provides that the President shall be the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. By virtue of his dual roles of chief executive and Commander in Chief, the President heads both the civil government and the Armed Forces. As the civilian chief executive who also has the powers to appoint officers for the Armed Forces, he is on top of the military chain of command, thus well placed to enforce control over the military. A cordial, progressive and productive relationship is necessary between the civilian and the military in accomplishing their constitutional roles. Such a relationship will positively benefit the civil populace and the military.

Since the beginning of the present dispensation in 1999 there has been a major progress made in improving the relationship between the civil authority and the military. Taking into consideration the long military rule and their involvements in transition programme, this research work explored government policies, adaptation and roles of the military in stabilizing the polity.

Aim and Objectives of the Study

1. To examine the origin of the Nigeria military;
2. To explain the functions and roles of the military stated in the Nigeria constitution;
3. To determine the impacts of military rule on governance in Nigeria, particularly between 1999 and 2013;
4. To investigate the functions and roles of the military in a democratic setting;
5. To examine within the period under consideration various government activities and programmes towards enhancing civil-military relations;
6. Finally, it will offer some recommendations.

Significance of the Study

The study will contribute to existing knowledge and current discussions on civil-military relations. It will also assist the Armed Forces in reprofessionalising and subordinating the institution to civil authority after a long period of military rule.

Theoretical Framework

Civil“military relations and the prospects for democratic control of the military cannot be separated from the more general level of democratization in the country concerned. Countries where democratic norms, institutions and practices have become entrenched are probably unlikely to be prone to military intervention in politics. In contrast, undemocratic or partially democratic countries may be more vulnerable to such intervention. The extent to which any state is politically and socially divided can also have important implications for its civil“military relations. A politically relatively united and cohesive society, or at least one where there is a broad consensus on basic political values and institutions, may be less prone to military intervention in politics than a more divided society.

The Geneva Centre for the Democratic Control of Armed Forces (DCAF) has defined eight key features that characterise an effective system of democratic control: (1) Civilian authorities have control over the militarys missions, composition, budget and procurement policies; at the same time, military policy is approved by the civilian leadership; (2) Democratic parliamentary and judicial institutions, a strong civil society and an independent media oversee the performance of the military; (3) Civilians have the necessary military expertise to fulfil their defence management responsibilities, while retaining respect for the professional expertise of the military; (4) Neither the military as an institution nor individual military leaders attempt to influence domestic politics; (5) The military is ideologically neutral; (6) The military has a minimal role to play in the national economy; (7) There is an effective chain of command; (8) Members of the military are free to exercise their rights.

Scope and Delimitation of the Study

The scope of the study concentrates on the subordination of the military to civil authority in Nigeria. Reference is however, made to other countries where relevant and necessary. The study covers the period from 29th May, 1999, the inception of present democratic government till end of year 2013.

Research Questions 

1. Has the military involvement in governance affects them in discharging their constitutional roles?
2. ‹What is public perception of the present military formation?
3. What has been the role(s) of government in supporting the military and promoting better civil-military relations between 1999 and 2013?
4. What are the functions and roles of the military in a democratic setting?

Methodology

A combination of primary and secondary source of data collection is used in this study. Primary data were sourced from personal interview of civil servants, serving and retired military officers and participant observer method. Secondary data were source from libraries, journals, published and unpublished books, lecture notes, official government documents, conference papers, news”magazine and newspapers. The collected data were analyzed qualitatively using logical arguments and sequential presentation of points.

Definition of Terms

The following terms are central to this research and are been defined as follow;

What is Democracy?

Democracy is often defined as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people determine in a competitive environment, those who govern them. The general consensus amongst scholars is that the people determine those who govern them, they have a say in the processes and decisions that affect their lives through their representatives and those entrusted with power, serve the people who gave them the initial mandate. Democracy is led by the majorities, who have a duty to respect and uphold the rights of minorities.

 What are the Armed Forces?

The term armed forces is used interchangeably with terms such as army and the military. According to Windham, armed forces can be defined as a class of men set apart from the general mass of the community trained to particular uses, formed to peculiar notions, governed by peculiar laws, marked by peculiar distinctions …7In a clearer manner, Fredrick Engels described the armed forces as the organized association of armed men maintained by a state for the purposes of offensive and defensive warfare.8 The armed forces therefore, exist for the purposes of war and for the defence and protection of the state.

What is Civil-Military Relation?

The term Civil Military Relations (CMR) deals with the civilian control of the military in a democratic settings. This presumes civil supremacy and guidance in other word full democratic control of the military in its role and responsibility to society as the ultimate guarantor of national security.

Literature Review

Few subjects have generated as much interest among scholars and policy makers alike, as civil-military relations in contemporary times. This arises from the fact that the possibility of evolving a free and democratic society depends on the balance between military institutions on the one hand, and democratic governance on the other. Consequently, a number of academic works have been done on the subject matter.

Democracy is often defined as a government of the people, by the people, and for the people. The people determine in a competitive environment, those who govern them. They get involved in the processes and decisions that affect their lives through their representatives.9Philippe Schimitter and Terry Lyn see democracy as a system of governance in which rulers are held accountable for their actions in the public realm by citizens, acting indirectly through the competition and co-operation of their elected representatives.

The general consensus amongst scholars is that the people determine those who govern them, they have a say in the processes and decisions that affect their lives through their representatives and those entrusted with power, serve the people who gave them the initial mandate. Democracy is led by the majorities, who have a duty to respect and uphold the rights of minorities. Normally democracy is enhanced by a virile and a professional military. The military is expected to be adequately catered for by those in power, and members of the armed forces do not need to be in government for their needs to be met. It is in this light, that democracy will be treated in the project.

The term armed forces is used interchangeably with terms such as army and the military. According to Windham, armed forces can be defined as a class of men set apart from the general mass of the community trained to particular uses, formed to peculiar notions, governed by peculiar laws, marked by peculiar distinctions …¹¹.In a clearer manner, Fredrick Engels described the armed forces as the organized association of armed men maintained by a state for the purposes of offensive and defensive warfare.¹² The armed forces therefore, exist for the purposes of war and for the defence and protection of the state.

In the literature the armed forces is discussed in relation to civil-military relations. According to Obed Mailafia and Gideon Gonda,¹³ civil-military relations cover the entire sphere of the relationships between the armed forces on the one hand and the civil society on the other. In the views of Samuel Huntington, the real issue in civil-military relations is how to maximize military security at the least sacrifice of other social values, and this includes a complex balancing of power and attitudes among civilian and military groups. SG Best refers to civil-military relations to the complex of behaviour in which civilian and military interaction takes place. It may, therefore, include political, economic, social and cultural interaction. It is basically about relationship, but tends to be dominated by the question of civilian political control of the military. ¹⁴

According to Amos Perlmutter,¹⁵ there are three ideal-type models of civil-military relations. These include the classical professional, the praetorian and the revolutionary soldier. On the basis of the three types of civil-military relations, scholars have attempted the analysis of patterns of civil-military relations in the United States of America, Cuba and Israel. In the United States; they argue that the ideology of liberalism has permeated all the institutes, including the military. The military therefore, is subordinate to civilian authority, although it remains influential. In Israel and Cuba, civil – military relations are completely different. The military is a very strategic ally of the ruling elite because of revolutionary warfare, in the case of Cuba and the need for constant war with hostile neighbours in the case of Israel. In the two cases, military personnel who possess high technical skills in the various fields perform civil functions, thereby ensuring that a smooth and balanced relationship exists.

Civil-military relations in Nigeria, as in many third world countries, are marked by military occupation of the center stage of power. In modem states, legitimacy cannot be secured through the barrel of a gun or from administrative apparatus. It can only be derived through an organized party system, interest group networks, the media, and group and collective support. Searching for example of nations where the military have stayed out of power in third world countries is an uphill task. Latin American militaries have been characterized by frequent military intervention in politics. All countries of the region have, at one time or the other experienced an active participation of their armed forces in domestic political affairs.

Military regimes have alternated with civilian government, with a swing in favour of democracy in the 1970s. The armed forces in countries such as Brazil have returned to their barracks and are evolving novel means to occupy themselves.^{16 On} the other hand the military in India have stayed out of power. They maintain a very significant role in domestic events and foreign policy. There are sufficient reasons in India for military take-over, but military intervention is never considered an attraction.¹⁷

Chapter Synopsis

Chapter 2:      Historical background of the Nigeria military and military governance.

Chapter 3:      Civil-Military relations in Nigeria before the Fourth Republic

Chapter 4:      Nature of Civil-Relations in Nigeria, 1999-2013

Chapter 5:      Summary, Conclusion and Recommendations.‹

Get the Complete Project

This is a premium project material and the complete research project plus questionnaires and references can be gotten at an affordable rate of N3,000 for Nigerian clients and $15 for International clients.

Click here to Get this Complete Project Chapter 1-5

Endnotes

1. Jemibewon DM.1998. The Military Rule, Law and Society. Ibadan: Spectrum Books.

1. Odetola O.1982. Military Regimes and Development– A Comparative Analysis in Africa Societies.  London: George Allen and Unwin Ltd.

1. Samuel P.Huntington.1957.The Soldier and the State: The Theory and Politics of Civil-Military Relations. Boston: Belknap of Harvard University Press.

1. ‹ Atiku Abubakar, quoted in Pita Agbese, The Politics of Stable Civil Military Relations, lecture delivered at Senior Leaders Seminar Abuja on 15 Nov., 2000., p.1.

1.   Theophillous .Y. Danjuma, quoted in Crossroad (Lagos) 23 Sep 1999., p.1.

Obed O. Mailafiya and G.D. Gonda, Armed Forces and Society: Towards Balanced Civil Military Relations in Nigeria, in BJ Takaya (ed.) Security Administration in Nigeria (Jos: Centre for Development Studies, 1992)., p. 290.

1. ‹ S. Gaya Best, Civil Military Relations in a Democracy, lecture delivered at the National War College, 16 Jan 2001., PP. 3-4.
2. Ibid
3. ibid
4. ‹Karl, Terry Lyn.1993.The Global Resurgence of Democracy. Baltimore: The John Hopkins University Press. p.81.

1. Windhm, The Armed Force in M. Howard (ed).1957.Soldier and Governments: Nine Studies in Civil-Military Relations. Westport, Conn:

Greenwood. p.11.

1. ‹ Fredrick Engels,1977. Lenin Selected Works.Moscow: Progress Publishers.
2. 380.
3. Obed O. Mailafiya and G.D. Gonda.1992. Armed Forces and Society: Towards Balanced Civil-Military Relations in Nigeria in B.J. Takaya (ed.) Security Administration in Nigeria.Jos: Centre for Development Studies.p.289.

13‹.    S Gaya Best: Civil Military Relations in a Democracy being text of lecture delivered to Course 9 Participants of the National War College on Tuesday, 16 January 2001. p.13.

1. A. Permuitter.1977.The Military and Politics in Modern Time: On Professionals, Practitionians and Revolutionary Soldiers.New Haven: Yale University. p.8

1. Manprect Sethi, Changing Role of Military in Latin America: Some Approaches and Interpretations (unpublished)., p.1.

16‹     S. Gaya Best, Civil-Military Relations In a Democracy lecture delivered at the National War College, 1.1 Jan, 2000., pp. 19-20.

1. Atiku Abubakar, quoted in Pita Agbese, The Politics of Stable Civil Military Relations, lecture delivered at Senior Leaders Seminar Abuja on 15 Nov., 2000., p.1.

1. ‹Theophillous .Y. Danjuma, quoted in Crossroad (Lagos) 23 Sep 1999, p.1

Get the Complete Project

This is a premium project material and the complete research project plus questionnaires and references can be gotten at an affordable rate of N3,000 for Nigerian clients and $15 for International clients.

Click here to Get this Complete Project Chapter 1-5