Studies of African military establishments following early decolonisation in the late 1960s, though very much of their era, are nonetheless particularly relevant now because many of the features of that period are repeating themselves: The reassertion of Western hegemony; return to free market orthodoxy; transitions to democracy. Three overlapping debates dominated these studies: the conditions of democracy and civilian control, the role of the military in modernisation or development, and the political order itself.
In this article in the African Studies Review, the author reviews the existing literature on the subject and raises some key issues, the most significant of which are highlighted below.
If there is one thread linking theories of political order and modernisation it is that both emphasised stability over change, and viewed progress in terms of rational administration from above stabilised through military force. Potentially critical Marxist theories, which might have undermined these assumptions, fell foul of the academic debate within Marxist theory itself.
- Standard accounts of civil-military relations are Eurocentric, arguing that civilian control of the military was the norm. These accounts ignore Europe’s own history, in which it was foreign wars and colonial conquests that brought the military under civilian control
- Academic studies (often commissioned by the US) portrayed military elites as a modernising influence and a stabilising force capable of intervening to prevent subversion or collapse of the state
- During the first three post-independence decades coups were the primary mechanism for the circulation of elites, more than half Africa’s governments had a military origin, and until the 1980s only Mauritius had seen a government change due to a free election
- So far, neither military nor civilian government have been able to resolve the developmental crisis facing Africa. At the same time, it is warfare rather than military rule that is the most destructive force in Africa.
Other forms and loci of power contest African states. Some states have lost their monopolies of force to sub-state rivals, while others have remained in virtual or even actual war with their citizens, thus rendering the state’s repressive apparatus of primary importance. If civilian governments cannot create genuine popular support, govern effectively, generate growth and peacefully resolve conflicts they will face widespread discontent and will be tempted to counter this by force, thus politicising the military.
- It is the very changes enabling armies to wage war on a vast scale and across the world which subordinated force to capital, and so the military to civilians
- Military intervention in politics is additive – coups are more likely where there is a history of previous military intervention – and also linked to the relative size of the military, its proportion of GNP, and its previous use in political repression
- A crucial issue for the current transitions to democracy is whether military parties can survive either as potential future sources of coups, or through transformation into democratic parties
- Statistical studies support the view that the positive developmental effects of military intervention are outweighed by their negative effects.