“No dictator, no invader, can hold an imprisoned population by force of arms forever. There is no greater power in the universe than the need for freedom. Against that power, governments and tyrants and armies cannot stand,’’ states J. Michael Straczynski, an American writer.
But over these years, the paradoxical trinity in between the army, government and the common people have caused impetuous revolutions in Africa.
‘A certain grasp of military affairs is vital for those in charge of general policy’ states Carl Von Clausewitz, one of the most renowned war theorists.
Though soon, he recognised that government leaders cannot be military experts and vice versa, hence reframing his theory to ‘the only sound expedient is to make the commander-in-chief a member of the cabinet.’
In fact, the continent is lined with this familiar attribution revealing the absence of good democratic governance, hence leading to inappropriate involvement of the military in the legislative dimensions.
‘Monopoly of Violence’
Sagaren Naidoo states that ‘In parts of Africa, the military, as an institution of the state that enjoys the ‘monopoly on violence’, lacks legitimacy as an agent of good and democratic governance.’
Starting from the post-colonial times, the military in Africa shifted from the political transgression of being ‘Western institutionalized paradigm’ to ruling the population because the civilian leadership proved to be dismal.
Also, the main task of military, which was to provide protection from foreign invasions by indulging into wars to protect the sovereignty of their own country changed to stabilizing organizational strength due to the collapse of governance. The effect of Cold war and the numerous military coups in African countries started deepening the crack, one after the other.
Though, several analysts defend the role of military and chose to put the blame of the weaker governance of any state, that manifests into the army being too ‘interventionist’.
Nicole Ball has also stated that it’s those countries that have very weak democratic system in Africa need the military. Thus, even if there are several protests and revolutions being witnessed in African continent against the military, one must remember that they form a concrete part of the ‘security sector governance.
‘The Egyptian saga’
The situation during the revolution against the Mubarak regime grew quite intriguing because the military in the country has been playing a very pivotal role in the governance.
Rainer Sollich, the head of the Deutsche Welle’s Arabic division states that ‘military has been there in Egypt during the important times of the history, especially during floods and scarcity of food.’
But even after Mubarak’s surrender and the army forming the interim government, the civilians are very disappointed by the imperceptive and heartless manner in which the governance is being carried out. The same military which refused to attack the protesters in spite of the curfew being imposed is becoming known for not giving access to activists in court proceedings, causing ‘virginity checks’ and hurling abuses at protesters at Tahrir Square now.
At the same time, smaller yet integral issues of employment, poverty, human rights are still being questioned.
Hence, the words of Sun Tzu seem meant for written for Egyptian history when he defines ‘The proximity of an army causes prices to go up; and high prices cause people’s substance to be drained away. When their substance is drained away, they will be afflicted by heavy exactions. With this loss of substance and exhaustion of strength, the homes of the people will be stripped bare, and their incomes dissipated.’
Another interesting point to make is ‘intrusion of western powers in the local politics of the government because they sponsor and aid the armies.’
For example, the security apparatus of Egypt is bankrolled by Washington. Hence, in the indirect ways, the military not only needs to answer to the pressures of their own government but also be ruled by the foreign forces.
Bosire Mosi states that ‘in the Tunisian and Egyptian revolutions, the military behaved democratically, refusing to be used as agents of death.’
‘Role of Libyan army’
There are 76,000 soldiers in the Libyan army, often being judged with suspicion after the Al-Fateh Revolution of October 1969. Saïd Haddad calls the army as the ‘marginal players’ in Libya. Most of us don’t know that Libyans have to indulge into compulsory military services right from 1984.
With 8000 members in navy, 23000 troops in air force and 45 000 troops in military, the Libyan government boasts of the greatest military reservoirs in the world. But at the same time, the poor maintenance services, labour problems and lack of equipments have worsened the so-called military status of this north- African country.
Over the years, monitoring and internal repression have been the main foundations of the Libyan army. Also, there are several quasi-military and security bodies in Libya making it even more difficult for the rebels to gain a stronghold.
But at the same time, the defection of the army generals in the past days has started questioning the ‘concept of loyalty in the army’.
‘Eye of a storm in Zimbabwe’
Due to being a landlocked country, Zimbabwe does not have a navy. With an estimated strength of 29,000 soldiers, the military in the country is surely credited as the power behind the dictatorship of present President Robert Mugabe.
Though, very recently, the Army General had also criticized the demand of ousting Mugabe and rather chose to call him the ‘Father of the Nation’.
Jason Mayo while referring to why military’s place should be in the ‘barracks’ has quoted one of the representatives of the Movement for Democratic Change stating ‘The best place for our gallant sons and daughters who serve as soldiers is in military barracks not the boardroom of a civic national body’
Over the years, the governance in Zimbabwe has been linked with the military on the basis of patronage and liberation struggle.
In an interesting manner, the Defense Minister of Zimbabwe Emmerson Mnangagwa fought for the stand of military in civilian governance questioning “are they not citizens of this country? Where they get employment after they leave the army is not our business. If other people can be heads of parastatals, why can’t they?”
Further defending the presence of military rules in the government, he stated that they would “unequivocally uphold the Constitution and respect the rule of law in the lead-up to and following the elections or referendum.”
Though, in 2008, the Human Rights Watch had stated that there is a secretive body called Joint Operations Command which includes police and military commanders, causing immense violence after the elections.
Zimbabwe also grew up into one of the African countries known for ‘’ military coup by stealth.’’
The abuse of human rights by the military officials has become one of the main concerns in Zimbabwe. Tiseke Kasambala,senior researcher in Africa Division of Human Rights states to the Times that ‘A lot of them have dirty hands. They’ve enriched themselves and want to hang on to what they have and avoid charges of corruption.’
‘South African Army’
Article 200 of 1996 South African Constitution states that ‘The primary object of the defence force is to defend and protect the Republic, its territorial integrity and its people in accordance with the Constitution and the principles of international law regulating the use of force.’
One of the reasons why the study of army in South Africa is interesting is because the country’s progress from being a ‘pariah state’ to a ‘peace maker.’
Unlike other countries, the military in South African cannot adopt a brutal interface because of the country’s international image portrayal dealing with peace-keeping.
Also, the military underwent several revamps, especially due to the change of the political governance. To start with, under Nelson Mandela, the military was operated under the structural changes and reconciliation patters.
Less spending on the army and competitive defense were the two main areas. It was said that under Mandela, the efficiency of the military was given more importance than the effectiveness of it. As times changed, under Thabo Mbeki, profound importance was given to military but till then, the army started suffering from several ailments such as HIV Aids infection, high ratio of general to troops, increase in the aging soldiers number and more wear and tear.
When current President Jacob Zuma came in, the military structure started deteriorating in a new and different manner.
‘The future of army in Africa’
Hence, it’s completely clear that the usage of army depends on the government and vice versa. Both these foundations are inter-related in most of the African countries and they need to develop taking into consideration that they are dealing with civilians with human rights, freedom of speech and expression and above all, longevity.
The odious manner in which in some areas, military tends to subjugate while in other, the military cannot do anything because of the low infrastructure, does not make much of the difference in promising the greater good.
Hence, the military in African and Middle Eastern nations should start being a voice of the population they define rather than dominating them.
shubhdachaudhary 