military and political obligation in nigeria
DESCRIPTION
The researcher looked at political obligation under military regimes in Nigeria. Also examine the possibility and the existence of political obligation from Nigeria military to its citizenry in Nigeria society.TRANSCRIPT
MILITARY AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION IN NIGERIA
BY
OGBEIDE CLIFFORD MATRIC NUMBER 23278
DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE, AMBROSE ALLI UNIVERSITY, EKPOMA
AN ORIGINAL RESEARCH PROJECT PRESENTED TO THE DEPARTMENT OF POLITICAL SCIENCE IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENT FOR THE AWARD OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE (B.SC HONS) DEGREE IN POLITICAL SCIENCE
DECEMBER 1999
1
CERTIFICATION
We certify this work carried out by OGBEIDE CLIFFORD in the
Department of Political Science, Ambrose Alli University, and
Ekpoma.
_________________ _____________________MR. U.B. CHIZEA MR. P.E. AGBEBAKUProject Supervisor Head of Department
_____________________________EXTERNAL EXAMINER
2
DEDICATION
This project work is dedicated to God Almighty for his ending
mercies, guidance and protection in my life.
And also to my later parents Mr. & Mrs. M.E. OGBIEDE whom
brought me into this world, set the pace and standard on which
I trend on. Adieu Dad & Mum.
Finally, to my indefatigable brother Mr. Gabriel A. Ogbeide, who
acted as a father and mum to me, denied himself of pleasure
for my sake and also provided the resources needed during the
course of my studies.
3
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I wish to acknowledge my immediate family members who one
way or the order assisted me financially and morally during the
course of my studies. They are Mr. Gabriel A. Ogbeide who did
all he could to make sure I fulfill my educational aspiration in
spite of all odds. Also not left out are Mr. James Ogbeide, Mr. &
Mrs. Sunny Ogbeide, ASP Solomon Igbinakhase, Madam
Ogbeifun, Madam Hannah Amusa who took care of me right
from the cradle, Rosemary Ogbeide, Madam Faluyi, Gloria
Ovenseri, Madam Vero Idahosa, Mr. & Mrs. Andrew Ogbeide,
Edward Oyameda, Ms. Betty Ogbeide, Anthony Ogbeide, Jude
Igbinakhase, Osaheni Faluyi, Esohe Igbinakhase, Tony
Igbinakhase & Imuetinya Igbinakhase. Also included are Dr.
S.O.J. Ojo who despite his busy schedule still created time to
discuss with me in the area that was relevant to this project
work especially military analysis. And also Dr. F.E. Iyoha who
assisted me during my admission process into the university,
my supervisor Bonaventure Chizea for going through my
scripts.
Also not left are my family friends and bosom friends who gave
my life a turn around and made my stay at A.A.U, Ekpoma
4
memorable and pleasurable. They are Chief Steve Okolo
Alogaga the Usama of Weppa Wanno & family, Dr. Charles
Osula, medical Director Osula Royal Hospital Benin City &
family, Mr. & Mrs. Vincent Okhemesimi & family, Linda Edema-
Silo, Ms. Stella Amadedon & family, Toju Amadedon, Mr. & Mrs.
Billy Omokuakele & family, Johnson Okunsebor, Kingsley
Iriogbe, Joshua Okokoro, Harrison Omokuakele, Desmond Edafe
Ofomola, Ese London, Mr. & Mrs. Friday Enadeghe & family,
Emmanuel Onyemuna “Ajas”, Sunny Odion, Stellamarris
Omogbai, Uhunoma Usoh, Iredia Ogiata Igbineweka, Sunny
Imasekha, Ayotunde, Friday Ogofure, Dennis Imalele, Amen
“Scaler” Fredrick Boyetie, Joseph Ozenwya Ahmakhu, Kingsley
Omondiaghe, Sunny Idiaghe, Christian Iyoha, Mazi Stanley,
Dolly Aimufua, Victor Aimufua, Alex, Jide, Godwin, Humphrey
Izedomwen, Osahon Ederaro, Efe, Carol Idiaghe and Mrs.
IDIAGHE & family. Finally, Efosa Osaro and Mr. & Mrs. Sunny
Osaro Osazuwa for being accommodating during the period of
writing this project work.
5
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title page I
Certification ii
Dedication iii
Acknowledgement iv
Table of contents vi
Abstract viii
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 Introduction
1.1 Statement of problems
1.2 Objective of the study
1.3 Scope of study
1.4 Hypothesis
1.5 Theoretical framework
1.6 Methodology
1.7 Classification of basic concepts
1.8 End note
6
CHAPTER TWO
2.1 Literature review
2.2 End note
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 Evolution of Nigeria military
3.1 Constitutional role of the Nigeria Army
3.2 Military and political obligation in Nigeria
3.3 End note
CHAPTER FOUR
Summary
Conclusion
Recommendation
Bibliography
7
ABSTRACT
This research work is on military and political obligation in
Nigeria. The researcher intends to look at political obligation
under military regimes in Nigeria. Also examine the possibility
and the existence of political obligation from Nigeria military
requires to its citizenry in Nigeria civil society.
This research work is divided into four chapters. Chapter one is
the introduction of the research work, and some definitions of
terms.
Chapter two is mainly on the review of literature, that is, books
written by some scholars in the field.
Chapter three shall dwell on the in dept analysis on military
and political obligation from the evolution of the Nigeria
military and constitutional functions of the military to the civil
society.
Chapter four shall be on recommendation and conclusion. It is
hope that the findings of the research and suggestions made
would be of great help to both government and Nigeria
students who are interested in knowing about political
obligation under military in Nigeria previously.
8
CHAPTER ONE
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Since 1960 when Nigeria got her independence from British
colonial rule, Nigeria people had not witness an enduring
democratic rule.
In January 1966 when the first military government came into
being, which we later headed by late General Aguiyi Ironsi, it
has been one military change to another.
For about 38 years of political Independence, Nigeria had only
witness a brief tenure of civil rule and these were the
administration of late prime minister Tafawa Balewa and Alhaji
Shehu Shagari as prime minister and president respectively, as
elected government. The rest had been dictatorship regimes
ranging from Aguiyi Ironsi, Yakubu Gowon, Muhammedu Buhari,
Ibrahim Babangida, Sani Abacha and Abdul salami Abubakar.
All these military administrator were never the will and
aspiration of the Nigeria people and their rulership were by
decree and edicts which enable the military cabal to make laws
for the vast majority and by so doing the military is not
9
responsible to anybody and disobeyed the lay down procedure
and rules of civil administration and no opposition was allowed.
In military regime, law existed for the strong and might is right.
Under the various military regimes, the Nigeria people never
had a say in the affairs that concerned them and as such, they
cannot sue those in authority as the case may be in civilian
administration were political leaders are responsible to the
people that elected them into various political offices.
Military regimes comes into power through coup ‘d’état and as
such, owe no obligation and responsibility to the people as the
people did not elect them into the office they occupy and no
same minded person dare the man with the gun.
In military regimes civil and political obligation is totally absent
as human right violation, militarization of the society, low
political culture, and interference of judiciary process are the
order of the day but people seems to reluctantly support the
administration because they have no alternative.
The enthronement of democracy will lead to an increased
human right status, de-militarized the society, lead to a high
degree of political participation and also lead to the
independence of the judiciary.
10
The objective of this study is to examine the effect of military
political obligation if it does exist in Nigeria.
1.1 STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS
Human right violation: - Military as a regime of force is a non
accountable system of government which as the Nigeria
experience has shown, perpetrate arbitrary arrest, repression,
authoritarianism in governance. As constitutionalism, the rule
of law, respect for human right and other principles essentials
for democratic rule give way to arbitrary, authoritarian and
repressive rule under military, civil society is virtually laid
hostage2.
Militarization of the society: - When the military came to power
as in case of Nigeria, the society became militarized through
the establishment of military task forces, military governors or
administrators, military tribunal, supreme military council,
armed forces ruling council, not as representative organs of
government but mere super structures for the conduct
government business with little or no regard to the ideas of
popular will and public opinion3.
11
Low political culture:- With the overthrown of a legitimate
government by military, there exist a low political culture,
absence of institutionalized political norms with respect to
process of political participation.
In a situation of low political culture, governmental legitimacy is
likely to be at low ebb while law and order are most likely to be
threatened4.
Interference of Judiciary Process
During military regime, the judiciary usually suffers reduced
capacity, independence and credibility needed to serve as the
last hope of the common man.
The most common forms of assault on rule of law by military
regime in Nigeria is the ouster of the jurisdiction of court. By
this, the military precludes the judiciary from inquiry into the
validity or legality of any legislation be it decree or edicts, any
action or decision of the government5.
1.2 OBJECTIVE OF THE STUDY
The objective of this study is to examine the effect of military
and political obligation.
12
If it does exist in Nigeria, it is the objective of this study
also to X-ray how military has manifested to the extent in which
the state has been economically incapacitated and rendered
unable to fulfill tits responsibility to the people, mobilize society
toward development, effect economic recovery, rehabilitation
and self-sustenance. The objective of this study will also look at
how the military has distorted political obligations and
disarticulation in the relationship between state power,
authority and responsibility on the one hand and citizen’s
rights, duties and obligation on the other.
1.3 SCOPE OF STUDY
The study is limited to Nigeria. Nigeria, serves as a good place
of study in research of this type. Moreover, Nigeria has
experienced military incursion in her polity on several
occasions, and therefore, can serve as a foundation for the
exposition of military incursion in other nations.
1.4 HYPOTHESIS
These are tentative statement which shows the imaginary and
independence variables. Their roles in scientific research are to
13
suggest explanations for certain phenomenon and guild in the
investigation. In this research the underlisted hypothesis would
be tested to know how valid they are.
1. Enthronement of democracy will lead to the de-
militarization of the society.
2. Enthronement of democracy will enhance human right
status.
3. Enthronement of democracy will lead to high degree of
political participation.
4. Enthronement of democracy will lead to the
independence of the judiciary.
1.5 THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK
In this research work, the elite theory approach would be used
as the theoretical framework. According to this theory, no
mechanism for ensuring the accountability of the leaders to the
public, no ideology which enshrines the principle of majority will
can prevent the elite from imposing the supremacy over the
rest society6.
14
Because of their power, their organization, their political skill or
their personal qualities, the members of the elite are always
potentially capable of exploiting their positions so as to
preserve the elite’s domination7.
These qualities of self-consciousness, coherence and unity are
held to reinforce the advantageous position of the elite in
relations with other group in the society. The elite regard power
as cumulative power gives access to more power. The elitists
conception of power, or at least of the use the elite will make of
power, comes very close to Hobbes’s definition of power as a
“present means to some future apparent good”8. Power is a
means to obtain other social goods-wealth, economic influence,
social status, education advantages for their children. In turn
these, as Hobbes also pointed out, become themselves power-
wealth makes for greater wealth and for access to political
power; a group’s social prestige adds weight to its political
activities. Both wealth and educational opportunities will tend
to maintain the elite domination in subsequent generation,
converting it into hereditary caste9.
Dye summarized elite theory thus:
15
a. Society is divided into the powerless majority and
powerful few (elites). These powerful few decide public
policy, after deciding societal objectives or values.
b. The ruling elites are not representative of the masses
since they come making public policy mirror the demands
and values of the elites and not the masses.
c. Active elite’s one subject to relatively little direct
influence from apathetic masses. Elite influence masses
more than masses influence elite10.
The basic contention of elitism is that every human
organization is controlled by small, cohesive minority. Power is
not only distributed unevenly but very unevenly. Theorist of
elitism agree that the development of elite is inevitable-
pluralism is a myth. Power can never be widely distributed11. By
this, the researcher means that the military over the years had
constituted themselves into an elite class. During the last three
decade or so, the military class have been seen to be involved
in the possession of political power.
16
1.6 METHODOLOGY
Methodology to be employed here involves the use of data
collection technique, analysis of existing literature on the
subject and research design. The data collection technique
includes content analysis.
Content analysis of existing literatures involves examining what
has already been written on the subject and this providing fresh
insight into the subject if necessary. It is largely base on a large
extent on secondary sources that includes materials from
textbooks, journal and newspapers.
1.7 CLARIFICATION OF BASIC CONCEPT
Military are established as first duty of any sovereign, “that of
protecting the society from the violence and invasion of other
independent societies12.
Politics concerns the matter of group and individual in matters
that are likely to affect the course of government13.
Obligation is the recipient right of state to be obeyed by
citizens and the obligation of the citizens to obey are simply
17
two different ways of expressing one things. The metaphorical
tie or bond between two parties14.
Military and political obligation for the purpose of this research
work, it the duty military-politicians owe the state or citizenry in
Nigeria.
18
1.8 END NOTE
1. Prof. Ola R.O.F; Local government in Nigeria; Jodah Nig. (Publishers) Ltd, 1985, P. 7.
2. Ojo, S.O.J; Military and Politics; Pub 402 1999 P. 36 – 37 unpublished material.
3. Ibid P. 36
4. Ibid P. 9
5. Ibid P. 12
6. Gerant Pany; Political Elites; Geore Allen & Unwin (Publisher) Ltd, 1969, P. 31.
7. Ibid P. 33
8. Ibid P. 34 9. Ibid P. 32
10. Iyoha, F.E; Public Policy Analysis; Pub. 303 1998 P. 5 – 6 unpublished material.
11. Alan Isaak C.; Scope and method of political science; The Dorsey Press 1985, P. 272
12. Kennedy Galvin; The military in third world; The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1980 P. 8
13. Rapheal D.D; Problems of Political Philosophy; The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1970, P. 27.
14. Ibid P. 78
19
CHAPTER TWO
2.1 LITERATURE REVIEW
According to Adam Smith, the first duty of the sovereign is that
of protecting the society from violence and invasion of other
independent societies can be performed by means of standby
military force1. All countries in the world today implicitly accept
this proposition and have prepared themselves with varying
degree of effectiveness to carry out this first duty if
circumstance makes it necessary.
For all practical purposes and intent, military rule of any type,
mark from its inception, the overthrow of constitutionality.
Military rule once established usually claims by decree and
proclamation, supremacy over existing constitutional order. A
country’s constitution being a charter of government and the
fundamental law of the land, its overthrow in a manner implied
by a military coup and the establishment of an autocratic
military rule which holds itself above the existing constitutional
order marks a break in governmental legitimacy2.
20
Another review sees the military as the only institution that
evade the civil authority, is “for ultimately the really coercive
power which the authority of civil regime is the military”3.
Tostoy see the evil of the military as in Nigeria experience as
epidemic that need a cure because of the erosion of legitimacy,
erosion of the constitution and other political institution and in
fact a kind of oppressive regime that places every body in
jeopardy, the decadence in the present military set up has due
largely to what he called bootlicking, cheating and backbitting4.
With the above assertions, and the violent and unconstitutional
means through which the military comes into power, political
obligation is not obtainable and not practicable between
citizens and military regime because of the undemocratic way
they assume power.
The military comes into power to maintain law and order, and
also maintain the (status-quo) already existing state structures
through coercion and not providing social welfare scheme and
other package that are geared toward alleviating the plight and
economic predicament of citizens that is obtainable in an
elected government.
21
Military as a suppressive regime, monopolized violence in the
state and it is trained on how to use violence and not providing
welfare packages. It was under military regime in Nigeria that
Nigerians were told to be self reliance through the introduction
of various skills acquisition policies geared toward actualizing
the aims of self-sustaining, and self reliance and abandoning
policies of providing welfare programmes for it citizenry as the
case maybe in a democratic and representative government.
In rational terms, men obey the state because they stand to
gain by doing so. They are conscious that the state has a
rational purpose; that purpose is the promotion of social good
on the largest possible scale, the achievement of that purpose
demand their willing co-operation and obedience to laws. They
obey the state because, by doing so, they hope to be provided
with those conditions of social life which are necessary for the
realization of their own personalities; it is the duty of the state
to recognize their rights and give them increasing substance.
When there is a clear evidence that, over a reasonable period,
the state is not doing its duty – in order words, when its actions
are not in accordance with its purpose, the individual has a
duty to ask himself why he should continue to render
22
obedience5. As Laski suggests, the state as it was and is has
found the roots of allegiance in all the complex facts of human
nature. This nature is a mixture of impulses and reason. The
satisfaction of man’s primary wants like food, drink, sex,
clothing and shelter involves associated life; and associate life
implies the necessity of government6.
Military with apparatus of repression have the power to make
things nasty for citizens of the state if they refuse to oblige to
their (military) instructions the political obligation in this
situation becomes compelling and not willing as it is suppose to
be applying the social contract theory in a representative
government. But what has been obtained under military
regimes as in Nigeria experience has been paradoxical.
The military is neither democratic in this composition, nor its
operation. Indeed, it is the least democratic of all state
institutions. It is an autocratic set up where orders flow from
top to the bottom and obedience from bottom upward. It is
therefore a hierarchical institution where subordinate are
required to obey orders without questions7.
Power may be said to oblige but not to confer a right. The
‘obligation’ imposed by coercive power is not an obligation to
23
the rulers, corresponding to right against the citizens to receive
obedience. Citizens ‘is obliged’ to obey, but not natural to say
that he ‘has an obligation’ or ‘is under an obligation’ and it
would be clearly inappropriate to say that the citizens are
under obligation to rulers or have they have right against them
because might is not right8.
Political obligation has never been functional during military
regimes. In Africa, Latin America, Asia and other parts of the
world where military has over thrown legitimate government
what has been obtainable were political presentation,
elimination of opposition, lack of compassion and apparatus of
repression were wide-spread at different level since
independence by various dictators9.
Military as a regime in Nigeria, Latin America and Asia has been
a resort of elite incohesion and in Latin America which has been
prone to military rule for many decades, the legitimacy crisis is
almost institutionalized. “The military or armed forces are well
place to take advantage of their government”10. And according
to Billy Duddly, based on how political culture, the military look
at themselves as the monitor and custodian of society, they are
24
discipline in way of operation, their belief is obedience before
complain11.
Naturally, the successful take over by the military meant the
demise of the erstwhile civilian political class. The amazing
frequency and number of intervention by the military in state
politics has been a major political trend in the content since
independence.
A claim frequently made at the time of independence was that
our armies were to be tools of modernization and national
integration. There is nothing new to suggest that they have
fully achieved these objectives. They are still limitation of the
former colonial forces from which they sprang their current role
can at best be described as confined to internal operations.
These interventions are spectacular, but they should not be
seen as isolation from wider processes at work12.
Almost everywhere in Africa, the armed forces are being called
upon to assume the external operational function and the
international operational roles. The strategic, deterrent, peace
keeping, intelligence and diplomatic functions may required the
deployment of forces outside the state in defence of national
interest and international obligation. Law and order, protracted
25
civil war, sudden onslaughts on presidential places, and
ceremonial role require the use of the armed forces internally13.
As the incidence dispute has been growing in our society lately,
the use of military internal operations may be complicated by
the stresses, that such disputes are introduced into the armed
forces themselves. During this period, the contemporary
prominence of the military as a political factor in Africa might
have appeared an unlikely prediction, especially in any one
acquainted with the general back group and historical
formation of the African armed forces owing to the general
pacific historical character of the transfer of sovereignty, rather
small and undistinguished armed forces had been inherited
from colonial regimes14.
The military estate lacked an active tradition, and had acquired
no distinction of privileges through its contribution to natural
independence movement. This lack of historical connection
with the liberation struggle clearly and initially distinguished
the military establishment of the post-colonial African state
from their counterparts in Latin American and Burma15.
Simon observed with barely disguised regrets that African state
lack what other new states of the former colonial world had,
26
namely, an army which could be a modernizing and stabilizing
source of organizational strength in the society, at least
standby reserve which could be called or could take over to
prevent subversion on a total collapse of the political order.
However, the co-operates of the situation have since then
dramatically change in large number of African countries16.
With the visible break-down in military discipline “coup with
coup have not only become a secondary growth industry in
themselves”, they have also accentuated the premise of
systemic violence17. The depreciating image of the armed
forces as a redemptive corporation caused mainly by low
performance in political office, raise fundamental questions
about its motivation for inter in the first place18. No longer saint
are humane to temptation of power, prestige or money not any
more different to the pull of greed, power, hate and the quest
for revenge, armies are now no longer referred as epitomizing
the best in society19. In this circumstance of mass cynicism, the
armed forces, depriving the legitimacy from the barrel of gun,
epitomize the worse in misbehaving society, and it occasionally
hastens to show the mass support is not a pre-condition for
practorianism by unleashing a reign of terror through the
27
instigation of fear. But the absolute reliance on violence, which
is increasingly perceive as a prop for vested interest, inflicts
severe dislocation on the stability of society in many ways20.
The military’s deployment of unrestrained violence into the
political process breeds a polarization between military men in
the barrack and those on the soap box. It also creates changes
in civilian military relation. The coup proves in both situation is
enormous21.
The most current consequence of indiscipline in neo-colonial
society is the “decentralized” of corporate violence whose
pellets penetrate every strata of social existence.
According to Nwankwo, the armed forces constitutes a defence
wall from which most of them commit the most extra-ordinary
tricks against public interest, emptying the national treasury to
the drain while pretending to be replenishing it and when they
sponged on the nation wealth to their hearts content, they then
declare their intention to return to their apolitical cocoons in
the barracks, hand over to their favorite appointees and
announce their civilizing mission is over22.
In distorted crisis ridden and backward peripheral capitalist
society where it has been the tradition of the dominant class to
28
localize the unequal and exploitation relation of production and
exchange, the state can hardly meet the basic needs of the
people and intense intra-bourgeous class struggle to win access
to the state and this preside over the allocation of public funds
prompt the manipulation of means of coercion. Politicization of
bureaucracy and armed forces, and use of ethnic, state and
religious chauvinism23. As the military wing of the country’s
ruling class, the military as in Nigeria experience has so far
“been nothing but an extension of the bourgeoisie in
uniform”24. The military has to that extent served as a powerful
vehicle of bourgeois class and predatory rule as it remains
entrenched both in the economy and the state.
The military shoots its way to power and to that extent,
disregards the democratic principles of popular sovereignty.
This mean that not only do military rulers and regimes fail to
recognize the people as the ultimate sovereign and source of
state power and authority, they generally tend to hold
themselves over and above the people and society25.
Consequently, political accountability, an essential requirement
of representative government has continued to be disregard by
military dictator. Also, since military regimes are characterized
29
by centralization of power and absence of accountability,
political office has been quite often, exploited by military rulers
in total disregard for the rule of law and fundamental human
rights of the citizens26.
The military is often the most successfully westernized of all
the institution in the developing countries. Its hierarchical
organization is carbon copy of the western army. Its weapons
are comparable, if slightly dated and the organization pre-
requisites of a western army, which they invariable copied,
know from the western technology common to both. The
military require trained and skilled men, organized and
discipline: the nation, the flag, destiny etc. becomes a
centralizing ethos that divide civilian society27.
The army can become a lucrative force for nationhood where it
succumbs to factionalism the result is a threatened
disintegration of the nation (e.g. Nigeria). It is not necessary
that this role for military be mirrored in every countries at all
times, but it is a national role for the army and in the absence
of other integrative forces, it will tend to develop to a greater or
lesser extent28. The foundation may be tenuous, and it
articulation may be mythical29.
30
More than a decade ago, prominent scholars accepted the
military’s ability to modernize society while providing “order”,
some scholar later respected this thesis and argued that
military not only could not modernize society but also created
social disorder, and lack commitment to fundamental rights30.
One of the best statements in recent time regarding the
purposes of the state is made by H.J. Laski in a grammar of
politics: He said the state is an organization to enable the mass
of men to realize social good on the large possible scale. It
exists to enable men, at least potentially, to realize the best
that is in themselves. men can be enabled to realize the ‘best
that are in themselves’ only if the state provides ‘right’. Rights
are those conditions of social life without which no man can
seek in general to be himself at his best31. Right is, therefore,
the groundwork of the state.
To illustrate, the citizens has a right to work. Society owes the
citizen the occasion to perform his function, for to leave him
without access to the means of existence is to deprive him of
that which makes possible the realization of personality. The
right to work involves the right to maintenance in the absence
of work. The right to be concerned in the government of
31
industry are other economic rights which are necessary to
provide decent conditions of life and work. The citizen has a
right to education as this will fit him for the tasks of
citizenship32. The right to vote, periodical elections, the right to
stand as a candidate for election, equal eligibility to
government offices, freedom of speech, press and association,
opportunity to citizen to contribute their instructed judgment
for the public good to elect his rulers and call them to account
for their conduct in office and all these enable the citizens too,
to work with like-minded men for the promotion of these
purpose in life which they deems necessary for realizing their
own personalities.
With the view of Laski, military regime as in Nigeria experience,
has never owed or carry out any form of political obligation
since it inception. The military has never made any provision
that could have enhanced the condition of social welfare of it
citizenry. The right to freedom of speech has been hijacked
through the introduction of obnoxious decrees by the military,
the press the mouthpiece of the masses, has also been
manipulated by military which had led to the arbitrary arrest
and detention of journalist during the reign of military
32
dictatorship around the world and Nigeria in particular. The
right to elect and be elected through periodical election were
not visible during military as they came through the barrel of
gun and use their machineries to perpetuate themselves in
power and unleash terror upon its citizenry that they are
suppose to be responsible to in a democratic arrangement of
government.
THE THEORIES OF POLITICAL OBLIGATION
THOMAS HOBBES: 1588 – 1677
Hobbes social contract theory as contained in the leviathan is
based almost entirely upon a psychological theory about the
nature of man. According to his theory, man is by nature selfish
and egoistic. He is motivated by selfish deeds which require
satisfaction if he is to be happy. For instance, all human action
can be explained in terms of his attempt to satisfy some
desires such as, the desires for sex, food, shelter, fame, riches
and so on. As a result, life was then so competitive in the state
of nature and because of this competition people go after one
another. Thus, Hobbes tells us the horrors of such an existence
in the state of nature as been “solitary, poor, nasty, brutish and
33
short”33. Since the state of nature was not conducive to their
self-preservation which is the uppermost aim, they sought to
overcome such a situation by advocating a social community.
Society is thus, an enterprise which men enter into in order to
achieve peace and to this end, they must give the egoistic
impulses, and to use kankantian terminology this looks like
“Hypothetical imperative”. According to Hobbes, the state of
nature became chaotic and state of anarchy in which every
man becomes the enemy of every other. He further
characterizes it as being devoid of culture, industry, art, and all
forms of social activity, hence a state of war. To this end, the
solution proposed by Hobbes was for citizens to enter into a
contract of commonwealth with one another. The condition of
the contract was that each citizen agrees to surrender all his
power to a sovereign power, on the condition that the leviathan
would protect the citizens of the commonwealth and would
provide a system of law and order. In return the citizens owe
the leviathan the absolute obedience. And an attempt to break
this contract will return men back to the chaotic state of nature.
The only reason for disobeying the leviathan, therefore, was if
he failed in his first duty, which is that of protecting the life and
34
limbs of the citizens. As we can see in the state of nature,
rights of nature are predicated on self preservation and since
everyone is entitled to this right, life become a matter of
survival of the fittest. Then it becomes quite obvious that a kind
of government body as proposed by Hobbes to arbitrate in time
of conflict is inevitable. Thus, he says:
“The only way to erect such a common power… is, to confer all
their power and strength upon one man, or upon one assembly
of men”34.
Hobbes’s in his work, uses his theory of social contract to
explain society and the basis of a man’s obligation with society.
The laws of nature are embodied in a certain set of rules or
conventions and they constitute the law of the society. In order
to avoid conflict and the consequent harms which could rage in
the absence of existing laws men have to abide by these rules.
Hobbes believes that these laws are only effective, if they are
enforced, and he points out that the enforcing agency can
enforce them only, if it is granted absolute power. If not, he
cannot prevent conflict. On this ground, he advocates an
absolute sovereign authority for every nation, the sovereignty
35
being in the hand of a king because it has greater consistency
and freedom from fluctuation in policy.
Also, there are relatively fewer favourites in a monarchy, and
above all, there is the maximum identity of public interest in
that form of government. Hobbes believes that, though the king
has absolute power the subjects should not be relegated to the
background they should be granted certain liberties which he
defines as “those things the subject may justly refuse to do
even though recommended by the king”35 these liberties of the
subject consist in:-
i. Those rights which the sovereign has permitted.
ii. Those rights which by the law of nature, of self
preservation, cannot be surrendered. The subject cannot
therefore be compelled to kill himself or to abstain from
food or medicine. He is also not bound to accuse himself.
iii. In general the obligation of the subject to the sovereign
last no longer than his power to protect them.
iv. As for other liberties, they depend on the silence of the
law, the subject being free to do what the sovereign has
not prohibited.
36
The subjects are therefore obliged to obey as long as the
sovereign can protect them since “the aim” of obedience is
protection. It is therefore, to their advantage to obey these laws
in order to achieve their set objective which is primarily the
desire for life preservation.
Hobbes simply means that, it is rational for men to live in peace
with their neighbours but where such it impossible it is also
rational to fight with the most effective means available, and
that both alternative are rational since they have a their
primary motive effective promotion of peace and security which
all men desire, and acting contrary will bring man back to the
state of anarchy. In Hobbes works he supported revolt, to him,
revolt against the government is inevitable if the government
fails to protect the lives of her citizens and a better government
be reinstated to satisfy the people’s desire. According to
Aristotle, the state originated for “the sake of life, and countries
for the sake of the best life”36. Hobbes perceives man as
rational beings but unlike Locke and Rousseau, he has no faith
in the abilities to live in harmony with one another without a
government. Thus, his idea of a social contract was promised
on absolute sovereign and his idea is that people come into
37
contract between themselves to relinquish the power and
freedom to an absolute body, be it a king or a few group of
people. Thus his famous work The Leviathan published in 1657
was a reaction to the disorder caused by the English Civil War,
which had culminated with the death of King Charles I.
His work could then offer the solution by protecting the citizens
of the commonwealth and would provide a system of harmony.
However, Hobbes work is not free from criticisms. His political
theory was only a solution to the political situation that was
prevailing during his time. That is why, he thought of absolute
monarch, this was because of the fears of British authority.
Events have overtaken most of his political theory, is that in
modern life the idea of monarchy is no more there. And his idea
of absolutism can be criticized in that absolute power corrupt
absolutely as Jefferson put it. His idea of absolutism is
anachronistic term in modern government. In modern term we
talk of democracy, ideology and so on.
Furthermore, Hobbes’ notion of political obligation also seems
to many people as not properly formulated. He has two
conception of political obligation namely, natural political
obligation and artificial conception of political obligation.
38
He terms the natural political obligation as a natural necessity
because of his materialistic point of view. He believes that
human being cannot be obliged to obey an absolute sovereign
because they want self preservation. But in a state of nature,
this would not be possible because there is anarchy. Hence,
they would wish to have a ruler who would be able to provide
security. On this basis, he believes that there is natural
necessity. On the other hand, he believes that the artificial
obligation is a logical necessity because it would be in the
interest of any rational man who has made a promise not to go
against that promise. If such a situation arise, it means that
person contradicts himself, hence the logical necessity involved
in artificial obligation. But one could argue against Hobbes that
he has confused two issues which are very different promising
is totally different from logical issues. If one promises, it stand
to reason that if one cannot fulfill that promise he can break it,
though there is little bit of self contradiction involved, taking
contradiction in a wide sense. This does not necessarily follow
that the issue is a matter of logic.
JOHN LOCKE 1634 – 1704
39
Born in England, he lived in a turbulent time, it was at this
period Charles the 6th was beheaded and William of Orange was
invited to occupy it. Locke’s political theory is diametrically
opposed to the Hobbesian political theory while Hobbes was
mainly concerned with an empirical justification of the state;
Locke theory has a moral thing. How can a state be morally
justified? He wants to construct an idea state which could have
as its background moral ideals which that government should
pursue. John Locke, like Hobbes in the Leviathan begins the
second Treatise with what seems to be a historical account of
the origin of government, using the notion of social contract but
he disagree with Hobbes that the condition men were before
the establishment of government i.e. state of nature was not as
he (Hobbes) thought it to be. Rather he contends that the state
of nature is a peaceful one when he says:
“Men living together according to reason,
without a common superior on earth, with
authority to judge between them is
properly the state of nature”37.
40
Locke uses the state of nature as a premise in arriving at his
social contract theory. To him, the state of nature was one of
bliss and he believes that morality existed before the advent of
civil government. But in spite the blissfulness of state of nature
men could not actualize themselves. As a result of this, they
decided to come together to form a contract while that of
Hobbes was a one way contract that Locke was a two way
contract, that is the citizen themselves formed a contract and
later contracted with the sovereign. Before the leviathan can
pass law, he must take into account the consent of the
contractees, if such consent is not sort they can revolt,
impeach or remove the leader.
Locke was the first to propound the theory of separation of
power, he divided the authority into three parts, the legislative,
the executive, and the judiciary. And one should not mingle
with the affair of the other. He was a through going capitalist,
he did not believe in the divine right if kings but the consent of
the electorate or citizens. He believes that people are naturally
free and moreover, within the bounds of the law of nature they
are equal. This implies that one should recognize as an
obligation the right of others. He goes on to say that because
41
men are created by God and therefore they are his property
and they are obliged to carry out his desired rather than their
own purpose or will. He continues that there is no evidence to
show that God has set some people above the other. We are
therefore obliged to recognize others as free and equal. He
does not give any justification for this assertion other than
saying that this is self-evidently reasonable. Subsequently, he
refers to the law of nature as the ‘will of God’. Lockes approach
to political theory from the start differs fundamentally from that
of Hobbes. Hobbes view man as being activated by desire and
with innate rational faculty capable of showing him how desire
can be realized. While Locke on the contrary, records man as a
being whose reason reveals on independent law prescribing
moral standards to which he ought at all time to conform to.
Locke like Hobbes believe that men agree to establish a
government in order to enforce the law of nature and contends
that since the state of nature is not conducive to proper social
and communal efforts due to the nature of man, he advocated
a form of community governed by rules when he says:
“Civil government is the proper remedy for
the inconveniences of the state of nature,
42
which must certainly be greater where men
may be judges in their own case”38.
This inconduciveness to proper social and communal efforts in
state of nature exemplified itself in the three difficulties that
arise in the dispensation of justice, or in the application of
punishment to those who disobey the law. The difficulties are:
1. Since each man in the state of nature is his own judge,
one may claim that he was injured; another may deny it,
who is then to decide the merits of the dispute.
2. Even where it is know that someone has committed an
offence, there may not be enough force to punish him or
her.
3. How can one weigh the amount of punishment to be
melted out for an offence. For these difficulties to be
overcome in the state of nature man require:-
a. A judiciary which will interprete the law impartially.
b. An executive which can execute the law when it is
broken.
c. The legislative to make law for the people.
43
Locke says that society originate in an attempt to develop such
institutions for the purpose of remedying the anomalies of life
that would prevail in a disorganized society or state of nature.
He posits that, man create a society by a voluntary agreement
among themselves to erect these institutions. The citizens now
transfer the power of punishment to the executive appointed
by them and therefore responsible to them. To him, he also
believes that in the state of nature the citizens have some
rights and most prominent among these, are rights to property,
right to liberty, and right to life. He contends that the whole
aim of government is to make laws for the regulation and
preservation of property and for the defence of community
against external invader and all these is to actualize the best of
life.
Though Locke criticism is outside the scope of this work, one
also have to look at one or two of the criticism leveled against
him. Some classified his political philosophy as a justification of
a bourgeois state. One of the social critics of John Locke was
McPherson in his book titled, The Political Theory of Possessive
44
Individualism, he postulated that Locke was more interested in
trying to project the individualism attribute of a bourgeois man.
McPherson says that what Locke has described as the state of
nature is nothing more than a market where he believes that
exchange is carried out and this exchange has value in relation
to what one can offer within the market. He is of the opinion
that Locke sees everyone as automatic individual with his own
power and this power could be exercised, if one so wish. He
concluded that Locke’s political theory is nothing but a
bourgeois ramification.
Another criticism is that his idea of consent of the contractees
before any law can be enacted is not tenable. Because of the
fact that human flaws are us we all cannot easily agree on
what laws to be made.
Many people have however, opposed McPherson’s analysis
against Locke which uses Marxist perspective. They have
argued that Locke was only giving a moral justification of any
society.
JEAN JACQUES ROUSSEAU (1712 – 1778)
45
The social contract of Rousseau is important in two respects.
The inspired French Revolution of 1789 which was a revolt
against the despotic French monarchy and also supplied the
basis of the theory to popular sovereignty. He conceived man
as essentially good and sympathetic. Rousseau like Locke
describes the state of nature as a period of peace and
harmony, man being free and equal, a king of “golden age”.
But with the introduction of private property the society
becomes complex, hatred, jealousness and quarrels arise and
man was compelled to give up his natural freedom as he put
the “man is born free, but everywhere, he is in chain”.
Though he feels that in state of nature people enjoy freedom,
nevertheless, he believes that in coming together under any
kind of social organization this freedom has to be checked. He
postulated a kind of ideal state where there will be government
to curb the excesses of individuals without people necessarily
misusing their nights. To him, he believes that the state is a
moral organization that serve the basic interest of everyone in
the society. Hence he posits that the general will which is a sort
of organic system different from what one could called
46
methodological individualism as we find in both Hobbes to a
large extents and Locke to some extent.
In his essay “Origin of Inequality” he points out that though
civilization has contributed immensely to the advancement of
men’s material well being it has not led to any kind of cultural
upliftment. He however, argues that even though this is the
case it is better to be in a civilized state than a state of nature.
The importance of political theory of Rousseau lies in the fact
that it serves as the basis of democracy and the justification of
revolt against despotic rule. His theory also gave birth to both
the declaration of right of man (1789) and the character of the
French revolution. He says that will rather than force is the
basis of government. His notion of social contract has a mark of
direct democracy, when he says that in a state, the associates
are called collectively a people, severally citizens, as sharing in
the sovereign authority, and subject as submitting to laws of
the state.
He believes that any decision reached should be unanimous
and everybody should be given a fair chance of participating
effectively in any important decision that affect the whole
society. He held strictly that, the general will should be superior
47
to the individual will and the will of all since it implies the
individual will and the will of all, and that it is meant for the
public interest of all hence should be conformed to.
His conception of social contract as indicated has a sort of
metaphysical thing and therefore has been criticized
extensively on this score. It has been argued against
Rousseau’s conception of the general will that it leaves much
to be desired because any authority could determine what the
common good is since he does not specify any criterion of
determining what will be the common good for different
individual as a result of this, totalitarianism might creep in.
However, Rousseau might argue back that, if this occurs, the
majority of the people could know what the general or common
good serves any particular interest, this could be easily
detected.
Another point that has been made against Rousseau is that, he
equates general will with common good. But it is very difficult
to ascertain whether the general will equate the common good.
To this two, Rousseau could argue back that since the state
serves as a moral agent one could say that the whole purpose
48
of the state is for the common good. Good defines in this sense
that the interest of everybody is served.
It might however be argue against Rousseau, that there might
not be a common agreement about what constitutes the
common good because in a state there will be divergent views
about what the common good is. Hence, there might not a
consensus.
As already indicated, the social contract theories try to justify
political obligation as being base on an implicit promise, like
the obligation to obey the rules of a voluntary association.
49
2.2 END NOTE
1. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 9
2. Ojo, S.O.J; Military rule and the crisis of democracy in Ekpoma political review; (IJPA) the Dept. of Political Science, Edo State University, Ekpoma. Dec. 1993, P. 50.
3. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 15
4. Tostoy Leo; War and peace War and peace; The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1975, P. 36
5. Appadoral; The Substance of Politics: Mactras: Oxford University Pres 1975, P. 19.
6. Ibid P. 20
7. Okhaide P.O; Nigeria Government and Politics; Oshike Yakubu (Nig) Ent. 1996, P. 122
8. Raphael D.D; Op. Cit. P. 80
9. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 11
10. Ibid . 10
11. Duddly, Billy; Introduction to Nigeria Government and Politics; The Macmillan Press Ltd; 1982, P
12. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit P. 12
13. Ibid P. 13
14. Ibid P. 8
15. Ibid P. 10
50
16. Simeon Sheldon W; The military and security in third world, domestic and international impact; George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd, 1962, P. 6.
17. Nwankwo Arthur; Military option to Democracy; The Macmillan Press Ltd, 1985, P. 65.
18. Ibid P. 66
19. Ibid P. 67
20. Ibid P. 68
21. Ibid P. 69
22. Ibid P. 70
23. Ibid P. 71
24. Ojo, S.O.J Op. Cit P. 55
25. Ibid P. 56
26. Ibid P. 57
27. Kennedy Galvin; Op. Cit. P. 13
28. Ibid P. 94
29. Ibid P. 15
30. Simeon Sheldon W.; Op. Cit. P. 66
31. Appadorai; Op. Cit. P. 20
32. Ibid P. 21
33. Popkin, R.H.; Philosophy make simple; Heinemann Ltd, 1981, P. 64.
51
34. Watkins, J.W.N; Hobbes systems of ideas; Great Britain Redwood Press Ltd, 1963, P.116 – 119
35. Popkin, R.H; Op. Cit P. 64 – 65
36. Appadorai; Op. Cit. P. 39
37. Russell Betrand; History of western philosophy; George Allen and Unwin Ltd, 1979, P. 602.
38. Appadorai
52
CHAPTER THREE
3.0 EVOLUTION OF NIGERIAN MILITARY
The Nigeria army emerged out of the ashes of the Royal West
African Frontier Forces (RWAFF) set up by the British to
subjugate the colonial population. The Royal West African
Frontier (RWAFF) itself started in 1862 as “Glover Hausa” from
the then colonial governor of Lagos protectorate lieutenant
Glover1. The soldiers also known as the “Hausa Militias” and
“Lagos Constabulary” consisted at first 40 armed Hausas who
were slaves that fled from their masters and took refuge under
Governor Glover2.
Apart from Lagos constabulary as this Hausa Militias were also
known, whose numbers soon rose to over 100 men, there was
the royal Niger company constabulary in 1886 which formed
the core of the Northern regiment in 1900.
There was the oil river irregulars raised between 1891 and
1892, later named the Niger coast constabulary. This formed
the nucleus of the Southern Nigeria regiment of the West
African frontier force3.
When lieutenant Glover first conceived the ideal of a military
force in Nigeria, it was regarded as an organization for
53
reforming some constabulary duties. But as a result of the
difficulties associated with the colonial administration, there a
deviation from the role for which it was constituted. The force
became instrumental in the subjugation of Nigeria and the
imposition of the so-called treaties of protection on the people.
Throughout, the force was used as a readily available
instrument of British divide and rule policy in Nigeria4.
To this extent, in 1900, Lord Lugard re-organized it into the
Northern Nigeria regiment which took part in the pacification of
the Sultan Attahim Ahmed of Sokoto in 1903. This pacification
completed Lord Lugard’s process of annexation of the entire
Northern region5.
Initially, most Nigeria appeared not to like military force as it
was regarded as a
“Mercenary bunch devoid of national spirit
and potent instrument at the disposal of the
colonial masters for the realization of their
imperialistic ends”6.
The 1914 amalgamation led to the fusion of the Northern and
Southern regiments. This was what was known as the Nigeria
54
regiment under the West African frontier force. It was in
December 1922 that an ordinance creating it was enacted.
In June 7th 1956, the Royal West African Frontier (Nigeria
regiment) was named Nigeria military forces7.
In 1960 at independence, it was called royal Nigeria forces. It
was after the enactment of the republican constitution that it
became Nigeria army 1963. By 1966, it has under its arms
8,600 men9.
According to the analysis of Dudley and Okay Achike, the
forces that graduated into the Nigeria army were essentially
repressive. They were created to manned and suppress local
uprising and ensure the stability and constancy of colonial rule.
In execution of these assignments, they became unfriendly and
cruel to the civilian indigenous population10.
As Achike wrote in his book, in the days of the Niger coastal
constabulary in the 19th century, they were called “forty thieves
because of their inhuman and rough behaviour. Achike referred
to one Eze who said “the army was like a place for the illiterate
and criminal whose duties were to kill and generally bruta11.
The activities of some soldiers in the village and market place
55
during the last was (second world war) only confirmed this
opinion.
1.3 CONSTITUTIONAL ROLE OF THE NIGERIA ARMY
According to 1979 constitution of the federal republic of
Nigeria, section 197 – (1) states categorically that the
federation shall, subject to an Act of the National Assembly,
equip and maintain an Army, a Navy, and Airforce and such
other branches of the armed forces of the federation as may be
considered adequate and effective for the purpose of:-
(a) Defending Nigeria from external aggression;
(b) Maintaining its territorial integrity and securing its
borders from violation on land, sea, or air;
(c) Suppressing insurrection and acting in aid of civil
authority to resolve order when is called upon to do so by
the president, but subject to such conditions as may be
prescribed by an Act of the National Assembly and
(d) Reforming such other functions as may be
prescribed by an Act of National Assembly12.
56
Defending Nigeria from external aggression:- Constitutionally
the primary role of the military is to defend Nigeria from
external aggressors, whom might want to threatening Nigeria
corporate entity through work force.
Maintaining its territorial integrity and servicing its borders
from violation on land, sea, or air. Also included in its functions,
the military is to protect and maintained Nigeria’s territorial
integrity, borders on land, sea and air from being violated and
attacked by external enemies. In doing this, they are trained
primarily as an institution with the management of organized
means of violence and warfare. They exist for the co-ordination
of activities meant to ensure victory at the battle.
Suppressing Insurrection:- The constitution also provide
that the military should suppress insurrection such as rebellion
against the legitimate government and can also be called upon
to quell civil disobedient and ethnic clashes that is above the
capabilities of the regular police force like in the case of
Ife/Modakeke, Ijaw/Itsekiri, OPC?Ijaw, OPC/Hausa ethnic
clashes.
57
Reforming other functions as prescribed to them: The
military could also be assigned other ancillary functions by and
Act of National assembly which may include building of bridges,
construction of roads, stadium etc. in case of natural disaster,
the military could also be called upon to assist in delivering
relief materials to affected victims.
3.2 MILITARY AND POLITICAL OBLIGATION IN NIGERIA
According to the 1999 constitution of the Federal republic of
Nigeria, section 14 (2a, b) states that “sovereignty belong to
the people of Nigeria from whom government through this
constitution derives all its power and authority; the security
and welfare of the people shall be the primary purpose
government13.
First and foremost, from the above assertion, military regime
as a system of government is an aberration, and also
unconstitutional, therefore, political obligation cannot be said
to exist or derive from government that does not have
constitutional backing.
In evaluating this military and political obligation, the
researcher will be involved in a comparative analysis.
58
Obligation in its broad sense is a duty an individual owes to the
state he or she want to belong for their own good. That is,
citizen perform these duties because of what they intend to
gain from such belonging or for the fear of being punishes. This
concept of obligation has a dual purpose, first on the citizens,
on one hand, and the state on the other. The state has a duty
to perform as well as the citizens. It is the responsibility of the
authority of a state individual belong to promote justice,
security and welfare of the citizens and in return, this citizens
reciprocate by way of obeying such an institution.
Political obligation therefore according to Appadorai is the
satisfaction of man’s primary wants – food, drink, sex and
shelter involves associated life; and associated life implies the
necessity of government14.
According to S.O.J Ojo, political obligation under military regime
is contradiction because we cannot talk about political
obligation under military whose method of accession to power
is purely by force and unconstitutional. He added that, political
obligation is only relevant in a constitutionally elected
government whose coming to power is through the ballot box
and not through the barrel of gun. He continued by saying that
59
democratically elected government during electioneering
campaign and through party manifestos makes promise and
had to fulfill them or lose the chances of winning next election.
Military regime as usurpation of constitutional provisions,
bulldoze it way to power and as such, does not fulfill any
political obligation as it ought to be in an elected government.
Since military government come to power by force, they
maintain status-quo and as such do not border itself with the
provision of social welfare schemes and other programmes aim
at poverty alleviation that a democratic government does.
Even if the military does, they are mere pronouncement and
declaration of intention in order to gain legitimacy and
acceptability from the people. Because the organs of
government are not on ground especially the judiciary which is
helpless during military regime, the citizen cannot compel the
military to enforce their pronouncement15.
Aguiyi Ironsi on 28th January 1966, in his national broadcast
note that the major challenges facing Nigeria include how to
effect rapid development and overcome problem of
unemployment. He then stated that his regime would pursue
with vigour, the implementation of 6 years, development plan
60
programmes and see to it that such project such as the iron
and steel complex were standard without delay. Various
military regimes have promised their commitment to taking
appropriate steps to increase food production through
agricultural development and bring prosperity to rural
development programmes. The second item on the 9 point
programmes of the Gowon regime was the implementation of
the national development plan programme which was largely a
package of economic development, recovery and self-
reliance16.
The Murtala Muhammed regime was very critical of the
economic power, waste and recklessness under inept, corrupt
and ineffective political leadership has foisted in the country.
He then expressed determination to instill a sense of sanity and
prudent management of national resources.
The Operation Feed the National (OFN) introduced by the
Obasanjo regime was a reflection of the commitment of the
military to the objective of economic recovery, growth and self
reliance17.
When the Buhari military regime took over following the
December 31, 1983 coup, it decry the damage which
61
corruption had done to the country and promised to stamp out
corruption from the society by enunciating a program of war
against indiscipline and promised economy recovery18.
Ibrahim Babagida on his own part promised life Eldorado,
economic recovery the implementation of Structural
Adjustment Programme (SAP) respect for human right, better
life for rural dwellers etc.
Sani Abacha was not left out in this hanky-panky same of the
military regime. Abacha regime also promised economy
recovery, improve human right record, poverty alleviation
programme etc.
Ironically, this regime witness the mass looting of public funds,
plundering of state resource, personalization of public office,
gross abuse and violation of human, government state
managed organized violence and repressive activities against
its citizenry it suppose to protect and own both social and
political obligation to.
Abdusalami Abubakar on his own part, promised wage
increment, freedom of the press and expression at its inception
in order to gain acceptability and legitimacy whereas, the
draconian decrees like decree 2 etc. were not abrogated.
62
Because constitution is usually suspended during military the
citizens and the helpless judiciary could not compel the military
to enforce their promises.
Political obligation under the military is discretionary and as
such, they cannot be compelled to fulfill the basis for which
government exist. Abdusalami Abubakar hand over to a
democratically elected government was based on discretion
and if he had failed to relinquish power noting would have been
done by anybody as opposition would have been crushed with
stiff measure through the use of state military apparatus19.
According to the 1999 Nigeria constitution, section (2b) states
that “the security and welfare of the people shall be the
primary purpose of the government”20. Military as an
unconstitutional government don’t own the citizens any duty
responsibility and political obligation the way it ought to be in
an elected government.
When the regime discovery that public opinion is not
favourable to them, they result to arbitrary arrest,
promulgation of obnoxious decrees, violation of fundamental
human right and disregard for the rule of law. Because they are
not representatives of the people, government is far from the
63
people, their yawning and aspiration are not taken into
consideration like it ought to be in an elected government.
Democratically elected government is evaluative, and as such,
take public opinion very serious in order to be voted for during
the next election. And in doing this, they are not only seen as
rendering political obligation but doing it because it pays
priority to it popularly and acceptability in order to be able to
predict future elections21.
Conclusively, all these military regimes were never the
aspiration of the Nigeria people as they imposed their rules and
rulers upon the totality of the Nigeria people and their rulership
were by decree and edict which enable the military cabal to
make law for the vast majority and so doing, they were neither
responsive nor responsible to anybody and also disobeyed the
lay down procedures and rules of civil administration and no
opposition was allowed.
Under various military regimes in Nigeria, the people never had
a say in the affairs that concerned them as such could not sue
those in authority as the case may be in a civilian
administration where elected leaders are responsible to these
electorates. Military came to power through coup ‘d’ tat and as
64
such are no political obligation and responsibility to anybody as
no same mind citizen dares the man with the gun. Under
military regime, civil and political obligation is totally absent as
plundering of states resources, human right abuse and more
declaration of intention is the order of the day but people seem
to reluctantly support because they have no alternative.
Military as a suppressive regime had always come to maintain
law and order, monopolized violence in the state as it is trained
on how to use and mange violence could not have been said to
providing political obligation and other programmes geared
toward alleviation the might and economic predicament of
citizens as it is obtained in an elected government.
The military is neither democratic in its composition nor its
operations. Indeed it is the least democratic of all state
institution. It is an autocratic set up where orders flow from top
to the bottom and obedience from bottom upwards22.
Military regime with apparatus of repression, have the power to
make things nasty for citizens if they refuse to oblige to their
orders and instructions. Political obligation under this kind of
situation becomes compelling and not willing as it ought to be
reciprocal in civilian administration.
65
Finally, political obligation cannot be gotten from a regime that
is trained in the field of management of violence and
combining these two concepts military and political obligation
is unambiguous because a regime that is so repressive, cruel,
and unfriendly towards its citizens that are suppose to enjoy a
high level of political obligation form their government if only
they were democratically elected.
TO TEST THE HYPOTHESIS
1. The enthronement of democracy will enhance
human right status: During military regime, human
right is highly abuse through illegal detention, arbitrary
arrest and killing. Consequently when democracy is
enthroned, human right is been enhance as the
government follows the true process of law according to
the constitution. And anybody who feel he or she is
arbitrarily arrested, detained, or his right violated can go
to court and seek redress unlike in a military regime
where the judiciary is helpless.
2. The enthronement of democracy will led to the
de-militarization of the polity: Under military regime,
66
the head of state usually appoints military governors or
administrators, task forces, sole administrator, etc. to help
him administer the regime policies, with these, the society
and social forces or institutions becomes militarized. This
implies that military rule transforms a country from a
political community into an administered state23. Unlike
when democracy is enthroned through the election of
civilian president, senators, executive governors, local
government chairmen etc the society and social
institutions is purely civil as civilians manned various
political institutions and positions.
3. The enthronement of democracy will lead to high
degree of political participation: When democracy is
enthroned, there is a high degree of political activities and
participation and people now breath the air of freedom,
avail themselves the opportunity of voting and be voted
for during a political dispensation. Unlike in military
regime where there is a low political activities and
participation as people are not too sure if the military will
quit the political arena. A case in point is during Ibrahim
Babangida regime when he cancelled presidential
67
primaries, and also annulled June 12 Presidential
elections. Also included was during Sani Abacha self
succession bid where presidential aspirants were
harassed, intimidated and forced to relinquish their
presidential ambition.
4. Enthronement of democracy will lead to the
independence of the Judiciary: When democracy is
enthroned, the judiciary is very independent as the
government derives its power from the constitution and
the constitution also guide the actions of the government.
And when the constitution is not adhered to either by the
executive or legislative arm, the judiciary comes out
openly without fear or favour to interpret the constitution
and will be strictly adhered to. While during military
regimes the judiciary is nuzzled and helpless through the
promulgation of decrees and ouster of court jurisdiction. A
case in point was during Sani Abacha regime when a
regular court ordered that certain detained persons should
be brought it, but the court order was flouted by the
military saying that the detained person were held under
decree 2 and that the court has no jurisdiction for such
68
order. This goes a long way to demonstrate the non-
independence of the judiciary under military regime.
69
3.3 END NOTES
1. African concord 17th July 1989 P. 12.
2. Ibid P. 12
3. Ibid P. 13
4. Miners, N.J.; The Nigerian Army; The Macmillan press Ltd, 1975, P. 16.
5. Ibid P. 17
6. Ibid P. 18
7. African Concord; Op. Cit. P. 12
8. Miner, N.J; Op. Cit. P. 22
9. African Concord; Op. Cit. P. 12
10. Ibid P. 12
11. Ibid P. 13
12. The 1999 Nigerian constitution section 1977 (1a, b, c, d) federal ministry of information. Printing Division 1995.
13. Ibid Section 14 (2a, b)
14. Appadorai; Op. Cit. P. 46 – 47
15. An Oral interview with Ojo S.O.J. of Political Sc. Dept. Ambrose Alli University, Ekpoma on 15 Dec.1999.
16. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. P. 28 (Unpublished Material)
17. Ibid P. 28
70
18. Ibid P. 30
19. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. P.28 (Oral Interview)
20. Op. Cit Section 14 (2b)
21. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. (Oral Interview)
22. Okhaide, P.O; Op. Cit. P. 80
23. Ojo, S.O.J; Op. Cit. P. 35 – 36
71
CHAPTER FOUR
SUMMARY, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION
SUMMARY
Since 1960 when Nigeria got her political independence from
the British, Nigeria people had never witness an enduring
democratic rule. In 1966 when the first military government
came into existence which was later headed by the Gen. Aguiyi
Ironsi, it has been one change of military to another.
For another 38 years of political independence, Nigerians had
only witnessed a brief tenure of democratically elected
government. All the military regimes were never the wishes
and aspiration of the Nigeria people as they imposed their rules
and rulership upon the totality of the Nigeria people and their
rulership were by decrees and edicts which enable the military
cabal to make laws for the vast majority and so doing not
responsible to anybody and disobeyed lay down procedures
and rules of civil administration and no opposition was allowed.
In military regimes law existed for the strong and might is right.
Under military regimes in Nigeria, people had never had a say
in the affairs that concerned them and as such, they could not
72
sue those in authority as the case may be in a democratically
elected government since during electioneering campaigning
and with party manifestoes, make promises and had to fulfill
them or lose the chances of winning the next election, unlike
the military who bulldoze to be in an elected government.
Since military regime come to power by force, they maintained
status-quo and does not border itself with the provision of
social welfare as democratic government does. Even if the
military does, they are mere pronouncement and declaration of
intention in order to enjoy legitimacy, acceptability from the
people. And because the organs of government are not on
ground like the judiciary which is muzzled and helpless with
outer clause during military rule, the citizen cannot compel the
military to enforce their pronouncement and promises.
Political obligation under military is discretionary and as such,
they cannot be compelled to discharge the basis for which
government exist because of the weakness, interference of
state organ especially the judiciary during military reign of
terror, as civil and political obligation is totally absent.
73
CONCLUSION
I discovered in the course of my research, that because of the
usurpation of constitutional provision by the military, they are
unable to provide the basis for which government exist and as
such could not be said to discharge political responsibilities and
obligations. Also discovered is that, because they come to
power by force they don’t border themselves with the provision
of social welfare as democratic government does. Even if they
try to do, they are mere pronouncement and declaration of
intention in order to enjoy legitimacy, acceptability from the
people. And because the organs of government are not on
ground like the judiciary which is helpless during military, the
citizens cannot compel the military to enforce their
pronouncement and promises.
In addition to the above mention, military regime with
apparatus of repression, have the power to make things nasty
for citizens if they refuse to oblige to their orders and
instructions. And political obligation under this kind of situation
becomes compelling and not willingly as it ought to be
reciprocal in civilian administration.
74
Finally, political obligation cannot be gotten from a regime that
is trained in the field of the management of violence and
combining these two concepts military and military and
political obligation is unimaginable and contradictory because a
regime that is so repressive, cruel, and unfriendly towards its
citizens that are supposed to enjoy a high level of political
responsibilities and obligation from, if only they were
democratically elected.
RECOMMENDATION
In view of the above analysis, I want to state emphatically and
categorically that the military, taking cognizance of their
fundamental obligations:
1. The military return to their constitutional role
2. The military should be subjected to civil authority.
3. That the military should in imbibe the political culture
within the political system.
4. Career training should be introduced within the military
hierarchies.
75
5. The civil authority should provide incentives, job
satisfier and motivational variables to enable soldiers and
officers to rededicates themselves to their course of
duties.
6. Bourgeosified formations within the military
compositions with an inner agenda should be discouraged.
7. Ethnicism, nepotism, god fatherism, cronyism, political
promotions, political sponsorship among other social
negative fall out which has characterized the military for
so long should be discouraged.
8. Reciprocity and complimentarily in the disposition of
functions among solders should be that of order of
command from the least personnel should be properly
fused together to avoid subversion and administrative
leakage to avoid the army being use to carry out actions
that could be inimical to civil authority.
76
BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
1. Alan Isaak C.; Scope and method of political science; The Dorsey Press 1985
2. Appadorai; The substance of politics; Madra; Oxford University Press 1975
3. Duddly, Billy; Introduction to Nigeria Government and Politics; Macmillan Press Ltd, 1982
4. Geraint Parry; Political Elites; Georae Allen and unwin (Publisher) ltd, 1969
5. Kennedy Galvin; The Military in third world; Macmillan Press Ltd, 1975
6. Miner, N.J; The Nigerian Army; Macmillan Press Ltd, 1985
7. Nwankwo Arthur; Military option to Democracy; Accady (Publisher) Ltd, 1985
8. Okhaide, P.O; Nigeria Government and Politics; Oshike Yakubu (Nig.) Ent. 1996
9. Ola, R.O.F; Local Government in Nigeria; Jodah Nig. Publisher Ltd., 1985
10. Raphael D.D; Problems of Political Philosophy; The Macmillan Press Ltd., 1970
11. Simeo Sheldon W; The Military and Security in Third World; George G. Harrap & Co. Ltd., 1962
77
12. Tosto Leo; War and Peace; Macmillan press Ltd,
1970
MAGAZINE
13. African Concord 1989
UNPUBLISHED MATERIALS
14. Iyoha, F.E.; Public Policy Analysis; Pos 303 1998
15. Ojo, S.O.J.; Military and Politics; Pos 402 1999
78