THIS is the second part of the five-part series on Military Intervention in Governance: Nigeria and the Continent of Africa. By exploring Nigeria’s experience, we also draw parallels with similar patterns across other African nations, highlighting the shared challenges and consequences of military involvement in civilian governance.
Another commonly stated justification was political instability. In many countries, democratic institutions were either weak or non-existent, and political parties were often fractured along ethnic, regional, or personal lines. Elections were frequently marred by irregularities, and in some cases, leaders refused to step down even when their legitimacy was in question. The military, claiming to represent the “will of the people” or the “interest of the nation,” would argue that the civilian government had lost control and that decisive intervention was necessary to restore order.
Coup plotters also invoked what can be termed political rascality; a term used to describe the lawlessness, impunity, and reckless behavior of many political elites. In numerous African states, leaders created one-party systems or concentrated power in the hands of a few, sidelining opposition voices, controlling the press, and using state institutions for personal or party gain. This bred resentment and created a political vacuum that the military could exploit by presenting itself as a more disciplined, neutral, and patriotic institution.
However, while the reasons given for intervention were often rooted in real grievances, the outcomes rarely aligned with the promises made. In many cases, military rulers became as corrupt and authoritarian as the regimes they replaced, they performed no better than the politicians they had removed. In fact, they often made things worse, promised reforms never came, human rights abuses increased, the
suppression of opposition, censorship of the press, and the dismantling of political institutions became common features of their rule. Over time, the same leaders who had claimed to be saving the nation from corruption and abuse began to enrich themselves. Lavish lifestyles, stolen public funds, foreign bank accounts, and patronage networks became the norm. Ironically, many left office far wealthier than when they entered, having looted state resources even more blatantly than their civilian predecessors.
They often left their countries in greater turmoil; economically weaker, socially divided, and politically fragile. Under military rule, economies shrank or stagnated due to poor management and isolation from international partners. Coups led to prolonged periods of dictatorship, human rights abuses, and in some cases, civil wars. The wave of military interventions that spread across Africa in the post-independence period was driven by a mix of legitimate frustrations and opportunistic ambitions. The most commonly cited reasons by military interventionists were bad governance, widespread corruption, political instability, and the irresponsible behavior of civilian leaders. Yet while these interventions were often welcomed initially, they frequently led to deeper crises, highlighting that military rule was not a sustainable substitute for building strong democratic institutions.
Nigeria today finds itself at a deeply troubling crossroads, a sharp and widening divide has emerged between the wealthy elite and the vast majority of the population who live in poverty. The idea of a stable, thriving middle class a backbone for economic growth and social stability in any society remains largely absent. What we now see is a country where a few individuals accumulate unimaginable wealth, often tied to political power or foreign interests, while most people struggle daily for basic survival. This imbalance is not just an economic issue; it reflects a deeper breakdown of the traditional social fabric that once sustained our communities.
Historically, Nigeria had its own systems of governance, wealth distribution, security, and cultural preservation embedded within its traditional institutions. These institutions were not perfect, but they were deeply respected and rooted in the everyday lives of the people; Chiefs, emirs, obas, and other local rulers served as custodians of religion, culture, land, and justice. They were the moral and cultural compass of their communities, maintaining order, settling disputes, safeguarding spiritual life, promoting communal values, and ensuring that wealth in the form of land, livestock, and labor was managed for the benefit of the larger community.
More importantly, these traditional systems provided a social buffer; a kind of informal middle ground between the rich and the poor. They created a form of balance, where wealth and influence were not concentrated solely in the hands of a few, and where everyone, regardless of their economic status, had access to a local authority who represented their interests. Traditional rulers were accessible, often living among the people, and accountable in ways modern governments have never truly been. However, over time, and particularly during the post-colonial period, these institutions began to erode; in some cases, they were deliberately undermined by colonial powers that feared their influence. But it was during the rise of centralized post-independence states and military regimes that the most damage was done. Many African governments, especially under military rule, saw traditional authorities not as partners but as threats, parallel sources of power and legitimacy that could challenge the authority of the central government. Because traditional leaders held the loyalty of their people and could mobilize communities without needing state permission, they were often viewed by the military as a kind of “alternative government.”
In response, traditional institutions were stripped of their autonomy and increasingly made dependent on the state. Chiefs who once commanded respect began to rely on government stipends. Their roles were reduced to symbolic functions, and many lost the authority to settle disputes, enforce moral codes, or protect their communities.
As their influence declined, so did the values they upheld; respect, community cohesion, cultural pride, and grassroots governance. With no strong, respected local leadership left in many areas, communities became more vulnerable to insecurity, cultural erosion, and political manipulation.
This weakening of traditional systems also left a vacuum in the social structure. The middle space they helped maintain socially, economically, and morally began to collapse. Today, we see the consequences: a country with extreme economic inequality, broken cultural identity, fragile security, and political systems that are often disconnected from the people they are meant to serve.
To be continued.
