New Generation of Military Coups in Africa
Friday, 26 February 2010
While military coups and armed struggle are being increasingly delegitimized, almost all avenues of peaceful political change are being eradicated. Probably the Nigerian Junta has done Africa a service by bringing it on now.
The Coup in Niger: A Portrait
Considerable confusion, despair and even disgust have been caused by the recent military takeover of power in Niger. Those of us who opposed military coups in Africa can take no comfort from the kind of civilian rule perpetuated by President Mamadou Tandja of Niger and its potential catastrophic consequences. Probably this explains why the recent development in Niger didn’t arose bitter resentment against the Junta. The regional grouping, the Economic Community for West African States/ECOWAS/ did not out rightly condemn the coup, instead asked that the coup leaders act “quickly to restore civilian rule”. Given the weakness of regional organizations to bring about political change the major contribution of Africa’s peace and security architectures have been in the realm of preparing the subjective conditions for peace and democracy. The norms, values and principles adapted by the AU over the years, to some extent, helped to positively influence the behavior of the African state. Prominent among which is the uncompromising position taken towards military coups in Africa. Indeed, the AU’s greatest achievement so far has been to convince African leaders, democrats and tyrants alike, of the need to outlaw unconstitutional takeover of political power. But this might have had the occasional perverse and paradoxical outcome.Since many African leaders have grabbed power through unconstitutional means, they have become the last to take advantage of it, thus, barring others from effectively using that rout to oust them. It is like first graduating to the nuclear club and then show a considerable distaste towards others who want to come in.
Ostracizing military regimes didn’t automatically lead to any improvement in governance in many African countries. Outlawing military coups is one thing, and scrutinizing civilian governments and making them respect their own constitutions and democratic principles is quite another. And here in lies the main failure of the African Union. Many civilian governments that rose to power through ‘democratic ‘elections have acted in a weird way, changing constitutions and introducing new laws that make it a lot harder to effect peaceful transfer of political power. And yet it isn’t so simple. In many instances it led to political crisis and anarchy. Indeed, it mutated into a predicament of a continental scale. The tragedy is that while military coup and armed struggle is increasingly delegitimized, almost all avenues of peaceful political change are being closed. Now the continent is awash with ‘fast-learner’ autocrats who know how to use phony elections to stay in power and block the process of transition to democracy. These leaders do know some facts: military coups are increasingly ostracized, they also know armed rebellion and popular uprising is facing similar fate; and most importantly they know that there is lack of regional and international modalities to ensure free and fair elections and prevent civilian coups. Perhaps the most depressing aspect of this grim story is the undisguised contempt with which these leaders justify their actions in the name of democracy.
As a result there is widespread, albeit potentially dangerous, cynicism towards civilian governments and elections are being discredited. The contempt towards these ‘civilian’ governments is widely shared and Africans seem to have concluded that these governments have nothing better to offer. As stated in the ‘Rational for the Current Analyst’ this trend is worrisome and a major blow to peace and prosperity in the African continent. Democracy is being used to kill the seeds of democracy. Some of us who,correctly in my view, pointed to the perverse consequences of even the best intentioned meddling of the army in politics have not always applied that insight in cases where we longed to see the meddling, and selected strategic intervention begin. Many are using democracy to wage war against the media, the civil society and political parties. Look at what Tandja did. He hastily drafted a constitution that did not benefit from input from either civil society or the general public. He simply extended his current term by 3 years, apparently without election, and allowed for an unlimited number of presidential terms. And yet there can’t not be a democracy without a civil society; none without a media, and is almost unthinkable without vibrant opposition political parties, as there is no democracy without the state. Worse, civilian governments without democratic soul or substance are sources of despair and instability, and no good can come out of them. At the same time there is less will and no international mechanism to enforce democratic elections. While banning taking force by force, we failed to come up with alternative sources of effecting political change.
Civilian governments have become accustomed to making their own coups to stay in power forcefully turning election results in their favor and killing several people to achieve that while major global players stood by and wached,but to the very end. The international community appears less to impede the day-light rigging of elections and unconstitutional means of staying in power; indeed with few exceptions it has contributed actively and even enthusiastically to the process. So much for election fetish in the African continent. The distinction between military and civilian coups is unclear, as are the circumstances under which the military may resort to force. There are, at least, three sources of military interventions in what could be considered as the new generation of coups in Africa. The first is the indignation of the Generals. The second is the rage of the ranks. The third is when the state allows its own overthrow. There are cases when the civilians invited the military to take power. Probably a fourth aspect in the new generation of coups in Africa is what could be referred to as the French factor. Almost all recent coups took place in Francophone countries. Is it a Francophone phenomenon? If so, is it related to the way the French governed, and left, and returned? Or is it a coincidence? What about the Major chosen to be the front man of the Junta. Reportedly, he has been to Morocco, Coutdevoire, and to some form of peacekeeping training? Speculations aside, the recent coup in Niger should not be considered as a separate incident. It is not an anomaly and only epitomizes the current political ills, something like a quandary, in the African continent and should be treated as such. The resurgence of unconstitutional changes of government in Africa is a reflection of this deeper problem. The recent event in Niger was foreseeable, and was sooner or later inevitable. May be we have nothing to offer by way of a solution to these quandaries, except to remind ourselves just how troubling these dilemmas can be. Probably the Nigerien Junta has done Africa a service by bringing it on now.
Those of us who favor only constitutional takeover of power in principle-not because it flatters our good intentions but also because it does good to prevent ill, couldn’t coherently be sorry to see President Tandja overthrown or caged or both. On the contrary: we should now be asking ourselves some decidedly uncomfortable questions. What happens when all avenues of political change are closed in Africa? With the shameful memory of real reversals of democracy in the very recent past, what would have been the likely consequences and regional significance of allowing former President Tandja have his way? President Tandja systematically dismantled Niger’s democratic institutions in 2009 in order to extend his time in power, dissolving the National Assembly last May, followed by the Constitutional Court in June. Nodoubt, the intervention of the military in politics should be condemned and prevented. The apparent difference and the reason so many of us felt intrigued when Tandja was sidelined was that he, pretty much like most of his peers around the continent, had began a political campaign that had all the hallmarks of a prelude to autocracy. If any coup is considered wrong, the coup in Niger is not a wrong move at the wrong time. Not only was the Junta had some reason to intervene (except to ask who gave the right to the military to intervene, or who should intervene?), its actions might have prevented a major political crisis. It was both on the right side and was intervening in real time. There is always enough reason to oppose any form of the involvement of the military in politics as a system. But such a system can only work if civilians behave differently. Banning the military alone will not solve Africa’s governance deficit.
No one should expect the military to behave otherwise, while the civilian governments continue to act illegally, contemptuously and brutally. For it is a mistake to suppose that everything civilian or an elected government alone will save us from conflict and from the abuses of power to which it inevitably leads? Africans have forgotten a little too quickly that for the African army to be tamed, the African state has first to be democratized. I am still against military coups, but I now think we should pragmatically engage each case on its merits and without illusion: above all without illusion about how much genuine change we can ever hope from elections and civilian governments without a democratic soul and at what price. It has also become clear that global powers will not be able to rise to the challenge. Military rule is indeed behind us, but so too is the post-military moment of hope. For many years I have been a prominent supporter of the AUs decision to outlaw military takeover of power and advocated wholesale ban on military takeover of power, only to learn that there may be cases that movingly pressed the case for intervention. And I must say Niger is one of them. This is more realistic and pragmatic than invidious.
