Is a military regime any different from a civilian one, especially in Nigeria? I am talking in practical terms results).
In an emergency, the type Nigeria finds itself, would a military regime be more efrective than a civilian one that takes eons to debate, approve and implement things ?
There have been news in recent times of some civilians reaching out to the Military hierarchy. This has got the Oga of Soldiers to warn of dire consequences for solders who are caught in any form of politicking.
Of course there have been whispers of some people possibly looking in the direction of a military takeover.
This prompted somebody to ask,
Shouldn’t military intelligence investigate the unholy military-politicians interactions?
Can’t these people be arrested?
Power, money and politics are inseparable triplets in human society.
Soldiers are humans (I suppose). And they are citizens, and so would be interested in what happens in the polity.
Same with the civilian population, where some would be laid back about politics while some would be highly interested, so it is with the military boys.
Humans beings political animals, there is politics even in the military establishment itself anyways…
So, overtly or covertly, politicking (maybe not career_politicking) would continue. It always has…
Politicking cannot really be legislated out of occurrence; it just has to be managed..
Someone else affirmatively asserts,
The worst civilian government is better than the best military.
Seriously, it is not the mode of government, really. It is the mindset of the people governing.
The ones with the agbada have not actually shown they are better at governance, so far….
Or, have they?
Soldiers shooting themselves to power with a gun is not very different from politicians rigging themselves into office, so what difference?
The mode of Government matters. The mindset of people governing matters. The capabilities of the people governing matters. The vigilance and resistance to misrule of those governed matters.
We have made more progress under the “pseudo-civilian” era than under the military. We would continue to move forward from here not backward.
Yes military coups and electoral coups are bad and should be punished.
Even then there is a subtle difference as you can challenge one in a law court but you can only challenge a military coup by joining the cycle of violence.
I think this commenter is merely being idealistic, instead of being realistic.
This is as my counterpoint, trying to give a response to pertinent portions.
Ordinarily, of course, a TRUE democracy would be preferable to the stealing of power through the gun. Or through CASH.
/The mode of Government matters./
Yes, the other things you mentioned above matter. But the mode does NOT, at least in Nigeria .
Of course in a TRUE democracy, the mode would matter. But elective posts are mostly determined by other factors apart from the will of the larger populace. A select few determine who get to rule, generally.
Same thing in both cases of a military takeover or a godfather / moneybag induced political ascendancy.
//We have made more progress under the “pseudo-civilian” era than under the military//
If you would provide evidence. That could be a matter of perception or opinion
Progress, backward, or forward?
What’s the level of indebtedness? Comparative state of infrastructure? I don’t know about one step forward and two backward being termed progress. In almost all cases of military takeover, it was to arrest a slide in civilian governance.
//Yes military coups and electoral coups are bad and should be punished. Even then there is a subtle difference as you can challenge one in a law court but you can only challenge a coup joining the circle of violence.//
This statement reminds me of the recent talk about violence in celebrity marriages where the focus was exclusively on PHYSICAL violence, while ignoring VERBAL and PSYCHOLOGICAL VIOLENCE,
In governance and the capturing of power, there are different forms of violence apart from using a gun to shoot yourself into the saddle. It is not just about artilleries.
There is also the violence unleashed through the power and strategic deployment of limitless cash. (stomach infrastructure.)
That’s the kind of FINANCIAL VIOLENCE that is deployed in a non-military political power takeover. And it is no leas abhorrent that the weapons-based type of violence.
Talking about challenging electoral results in court, this is mostly theoretical – here.
Remember Late PresidentYar’Adua admitted the election that brought him in was flawed?. The courts that declared him winner knew it, but still confirmed his presidency for POLITICAL EXPEDIENCY. That doesn’t look like challenging results in court always yields correct results (although there are Exceptions).
Remember also the two-thirds of 19 equalling 12 NPN/UPN era.
No; for me, the mode of governmental ascendancy is not Important; the more important factor are the people, UNIFORMED or not.
Would you have a Libya that thrives under a Moamar Ghadaffi , a Ghana that thrives under a Jerry Rawlings, or a decrepit civilian government instead?
For me it is not the process that is important. It is the result .
THE MONK DOES NOT MAKE THE ROBE
A government that came to power by the barrel of THE GUN, or a militrocracy can do as well as, or even better than a civilian regime
It is not about the apparel
There are military regimes that are fantastic. The Libyan one is an example. The sanitization brought in by Rawlings in Ghana is another…
Let us instead focus on being the right people instead of focusing on the mode of government (parliamentary, military, democratic, whatever). It would trickle into any thing we do as a country.