We must not allow disappointment with civilian government to blind us to the dangers of military rule, argues
GODWIN SOGOLO
·
· Under difficult circumstances, we continue to give thanks to God in the recognition that things could have been much worse. Although this belief cannot be empirically verified, it remains both logically conceivable and practically meaningful. Indeed, the recognition that our circumstances could have been worse constitutes one of the fundamental premises underlying human faith and religious belief.
· At the individual level, the thought that “things could have been worse” offers consolation rather than satisfaction with our present circumstances. It invites us to envisage a possible world in which our situation is less favourable than it is in reality — a world that is logically conceivable, even if it does not exist. This perspective helps us appreciate that, however unpleasant our present condition may be, circumstances could have been even less favourable. While we pray that our situation does not deteriorate further, our ultimate aspiration remains to overcome the challenges we face and improve our lot in life.
· At the broader socio-political level, however, this way of thinking can serve purposes that go beyond personal consolation. Politicians frequently appeal to the fear of a worse alternative to persuade citizens that their policies, decisions, or continued stay in power are preferable to the consequences of choosing otherwise. The argument is simple but powerful: whatever the shortcomings of the present administartion, changing it might produce something even worse. The possibility of a greater disaster thus becomes an instrument of political persuasion, and sometimes a convenient means of defending an otherwise indefensible situation.
· The crucial question, however, is whether the possibility that things could have been worse is sufficient justification for accepting things as they are. More importantly, does the fact that one situation might have been worse establish that the alternative is necessarily better? These questions are particularly relevant to the debate over military intervention in African politics and, indeed, beyond.
· Examples of political leaders invoking the prospect of a greater disaster to justify controversial decisions abound in contemporary international politics. President Donald Trump of the United States, for instance, has justified military action against the Islamic Republic of Iran on the grounds that it was necessary to protect America and the wider Western world from the potentially catastrophic consequences of Iran acquiring and using nuclear weapons. The underlying argument is that the costs and dangers of military action must be weighed against the potentially catastrophic consequences of failing to act. In such reasoning, war is presented not necessarily as a desirable outcome in itself, but as a means of preventing something worse.
·
· Military apologists in Africa employ similar reasoning to justify the intervention of the armed forces in the political systems of African states. Their arguments rest, broadly, on two principal claims. The first is that democratic institutions, largely inherited or adapted from Western political traditions, are structurally ill-suited to the socio-cultural realities of African societies. According to this view, liberal democracy does not adequately reflect Africa’s indigenous political traditions, communal values, historical experiences, and patterns of social organisation. It is argued that the transplantation of such institutions onto African soil has contributed to political instability, electoral manipulation, corruption, and ineffective governance.
· The second argument, which follows from the first, is that the military – by virtue of its hierarchical structure, discipline, organisational coherence, and capacity for decisive action – is better equipped to govern than civilian politicians. Advocates of military rule often invoke the failures of civilian administrations – particularly corruption, abuse of power, ethnic and religious divisions, electoral fraud, and economic mismanagement – to suggest that military intervention, however undesirable in principle, may be necessary to rescue a nation from political and economic collapse. The underlying reasoning is familiar: if civilian democracy has brought a country to the brink of disaster, military rule may be justified as the lesser evil, preventing circumstances from becoming much worse.
· Both arguments, however, rest on assumptions that require critical examination. The first argument requires us to distinguish between the historical origins of democratic institutions and their suitability for African societies. The fact that certain democratic institutions were developed in the West does not, in itself, establish that they are incompatible with African values or political traditions. Nor does it follow that Africa must choose between an uncritical adoption of Western models and a wholesale rejection of democratic governance. The more pertinent question is how democratic institutions can be adapted to the historical, cultural, and socio-political circumstances of individual African states while preserving the principles of accountability, popular participation, and the rule of law.
· The second argument – that military governments are inherently better equipped to govern – also rests on questionable assumptions. Military organisations may be highly effective in maintaining internal discipline and executing commands, but the qualities required to command an army are not identical to those required to govern a complex, pluralistic society. A country is not a military barracks, and its citizens are not soldiers expected to obey orders without question.
· Similarly, the claim that military governments have performed better than civilian administrations cannot be sustained merely by pointing to the shortcomings of particular civilian governments. Military regimes are not immune to corruption, authoritarianism, economic mismanagement, or the abuse of public power. Indeed, the concentration of political authority in the hands of military rulers may weaken the very mechanisms of accountability needed to prevent such abuses. The suspension of constitutional government may therefore replace one set of political problems with another, sometimes more serious, rather than resolve the difficulties that originally prompted intervention.
· The crucial issue, therefore, is not whether military rule might – under particular circumstances – appear preferable to a failing civilian administration. It is whether military intervention provides a sustainable solution to the underlying problems of governance or merely postpones, compounds, or reproduces them. Here, the familiar argument that things could have been much worse becomes a convenient instrument of justification: the military presents itself as the force that has saved, or must save, the nation from a greater disaster. Yet the possibility that civilian rule might have deteriorated further does not, by itself, establish that military intervention was necessary, legitimate, or beneficial. A convincing defence of intervention must demonstrate not merely the failures it claims to prevent, but also the legitimacy, effectiveness, and long-term consequences of the alternative it proposes.
· In assessing previous administrations, whether military or civilian, we must also recognise a psychological tendency that can distort our judgement of the past. Every generation is susceptible to the belief that things were better in earlier times and that the present is inferior to what came before. Accompanying this tendency is often an uncertainty about, and fear of, the future. The past becomes a refuge from the anxieties of the present, while the future is perceived less as an opportunity for improvement than as a source of impending danger. The growing global concern over the actual and potential dangers posed by the uncontrolled development of artificial intelligence (AI) provides a good example.
·
· Psychologists have several concepts that help explain this tendency, including rosy retrospection, the inclination to remember past experiences more favourably than they were, and nostalgia, the sentimental longing for an earlier period. A related phenomenon is status quo bias, the tendency to prefer a familiar arrangement to an uncertain alternative. These concepts may help explain why some Nigerians, particularly among the older generations, increasingly look back with nostalgia at the years of military rule.
· Ultimately, nostalgia for military rule may be understood, at least in part, as an expression of popular disappointment with the performance of democratic institutions. When citizens perceive that democracy has become an instrument for the enrichment of the political elite rather than a mechanism for promoting public welfare, they may begin to romanticise an authoritarian past. Yet such nostalgia can be misleading if it encourages people to confuse the visible execution of developmental projects with good governance in its broader sense. Roads, bridges, and public buildings are important, but so too are accountability, the rule of law, respect for human rights, and the freedom of citizens to choose and remove their leaders.
· The lesson, therefore, is not that Nigeria should return to military rule, but that democratic governance must demonstrate its capacity to deliver tangible improvements in the lives of ordinary citizens. A democracy that fails to translate public resources into public welfare risks undermining its own legitimacy and creating conditions in which authoritarian alternatives begin to appear attractive. What Nigerians should yearn for is not the return of the military, but the return of purposeful leadership, fiscal discipline, accountability, institutional integrity and a genuine commitment to national development.
·
· However bad things may get, we must not allow disappointment with civilian government to blind us to the dangers of military rule. Our objective should not be to find comfort in the thought that things could have been worse, but to build a political system in which they can genuinely become better.
·
·
Sogolo is an Emeritus Professor who has taught and conducted research in Philosophy for over five decades – at the University of Ibadan, Cardiff University of Wales and currently at the National Open University of Nigeria.
·