The Norms for Civil-Military Relations in Nigeria, By Jibrin Ibrahim - Premium Times Nigeria
From this moment onward military praetorians became associated with the C. Civil-military relation: this notion connote the idea of engendering civilian control . Mar 14, In other words, the civilians make policy, while the uniformed folks are expected to salute and execute the policy. This relationship between the. Sep 4, This has significantly affected the relationship between the civilians This research therefore examines this pattern of civil-military relationship.
With all its imperfections, Nigerians have now come to settle for even the worst form of civilian rule even if democratic rule is still a remote — possibility. Fortunately, the military has also come to the conclusion that it hardly fare better under military rule as professionalism is the first casualty.
Military regimes were not willing to have a professional military that could strike with precision because of the fear of military coup. The argument then is that rather than preparing Africans for political independence, the colonial regime prepared Africans against independence [ 7 ]. Democracy, democratization and military in Nigeria discussion and analysis Democracy has become a much — abused concept even as it has gained a lot of currency across the globe.
Claude Ake argues that democracy has been devalued in order to make it convenient and less threatening to those in power or demanding on anyone. While it spreads, our world is more repressive, after the cold war, there is only one power bloc whose leader act as thought might is right.
There is only one ideology, liberal democracy, only one religionmarket forces. Democratic theory has been mired in an unresolved conflict between two meanings The first conceives democracy as some kind of popular power, a kind of politics in which citizens are engaged in self — government and self-regulation.
This perspective holds the view that democracy has a basic intent and objectives. These intents such as individual liberty, equality of citizens, fundamental rights can be realized within a variety of processes.
Democratic government must be dedicated to the well — being of the people who should be able to hold leaders accountable and make them the people express their wishes and respond to their needs [ 9 ]. The second views democracy as an aid to decision — making, that is, a means of conferring authority on those periodically voted into office. Democracy through voting aggregates interest and expresses policy preference.
The emphasis here is process, those institutions and processes designed to ensure the happiness of society as a whole not triumphing on individual liberty. These two ways of viewing democracy has led to the emergence of three models of democracy. The first is a system of decision — making about public affairs in which citizen are directly involved. This is the original form that democracy took in the Greek city — state of Athens and is referred to as direct democracy.
Direct democracy is indeed the foundation of republican government. Citizen participation is underlined by a commitment to the principle of civic virtue.
The second model is the liberal or representative democracy. Representative democracy was therefore the institutional structure that is devised to protect individual liberty and at the same time ensure the general welfare [ 10 ].
HISTORY OF CIVIL
The third model is the one party or Marxist democracy. This model takes off from the view that the ideals of liberty, equality and justice that produce the liberation tradition could not be realized by free struggle for votes in the political systems together with the free struggle for profit in the market place.
The failure of liberalism to achieve these ideals is attributed to the dynamics of capitalism that produces systematic inequality and thereby limits individual freedom.
There is also the tendency of inequality and constraints in economic production, especially in capitalist societies, to abridge the realization of justice and liberty [ 11 ]. The districts in turn sand their representative to the national government. This pyramid structure of delegated democracy would restore self— reliance and freedom In Nigeria, we have adopted the liberal model of democracy that places emphasis on electoral competition in a high context of high inequalities individual and group and an authoritarian state, such that people vote without choosing, and when they close the only option is between two oppressors.
Thus, the nature of the state, the ambivalent citizenship and thereby problematic civil society, coupled with poor social conditions marked by wide spread poverty and ignorance limit good governance and threaten democracy [ 12 ].
Liberal democracy extends beyond the minimalist or electoral democracy. In addition to regular, free and fair electoral competition and universal suffrage, it requires the absence of reserved domain of power for the military or other social and political forces that are not either directly or indirectly accountable to the electorate Second, in addition to the vertical accountable of rulers to the ruled which is secured most reliably through regular, free and fair electionsit requires horizontal accountability of office — holders to one another.
This constrains executive power and so helps protect constitutionalism, of law and the deliberative process. Third, it encourages extensive provision for political and civic pluralism as well as kir individual and group freedom belief, opinion, speech, assembly etc. Democratization entails the continuous restructuring of both state and civil society. It involves the restructuring of political institutions and the general approach to management of public affairs with an eye on efficient collective prosperity [ 13 ].
For developing countries, it implies particular conception of development management that mobilizes citizen initiative and resources by their active participation in public affairs. This can be referred to as extending the procedural model to encompassing substantive democracy. One outcome of the democratization processes on the military is that of gain in professionalism. The social tensions and division that result from the involvement of a fraction of the militarily in politics should begin to disappear, more so with the retirement of the political soldiers.
It is obvious that only a fraction of the armed get involved in politics and the juicy appointments that it throws up. In any case, there are practices within the democratization processes that activate militarism and thus endanger the unfolding processes.
- Civil–military relations
- Civil-Military Relations
- Strategies to Enhance Civil Military Relations in Nigeria: “ The Role of the Armed Forces ”
By democracy or the absence of rigging or corruption at polling booths nor the absence of the intimidation of voters but we have in mind some respect for movement from one — party rule to multi —partismfrom military rule to multi — party democracy and life presidency to a term — presidency.
Convergence theory postulated either a civilianization of the military or a militarization of society      However, despite this convergence, Janowitz insisted that the military world would retain certain essential differences from the civilian and that it would remain recognizably military in nature. His answer was to ensure that convergence occurred, thus ensuring that the military world would be imbued with the norms and expectations of the society that created it.
He encouraged use of conscription, which would bring a wide variety of individuals into the military. He also encouraged the use of more Reserve Officer Training Corps ROTC programs at colleges and universities to ensure that the military academies did not have a monopoly on the type of officer, particularly the senior general officer and flag officer leadership positions, in the military services.
He specifically encouraged the development of ROTC programs in the more elite universities, so that the broader influences of society would be represented by the officer corps. The more such societal influences present within the military culture, the smaller the attitudinal differences between the two worlds and the greater the chance of civilians maintaining control over the military.
Janowitz, like Huntington, believed that the civilian and military worlds were different from one another; while Huntington developed a theory to control the difference, Janowitz developed a theory to diminish the difference. In response to Huntington's position on the functional imperative, Janowitz concluded that in the new nuclear age, the United States was going to have to be able to deliver both strategic deterrence and an ability to participate in limited wars.
Such a regime, new in American history, was going to require a new military self-conception, the constabulary concept: The military, instead of viewing itself as a fire company to be called out in emergency, would then be required to imagine itself in the role of a police force, albeit on the international level rather than domestically.
The role of the civilian elite would be to interact closely with the military elite so as to ensure a new and higher standard of professional military education, one that would ensure that military professionals were more closely attuned to the ideals and norms of civilian society.
This hypothesis evolved into the Postmodern Military Modelwhich helped predict the course of civil-military relations after the end of the Cold War. An institutional model presents the military as an organization highly divergent from civilian society while an occupational model presents the military more convergent with civilian structures. While Moskos did not propose that the military was ever "entirely separate or entirely coterminous with civilian society", the use of a scale helped better to highlight the changing interface between the armed forces and society.
One centered on a contention within military circles that the United States lost the war because of unnecessary civilian meddling in military matters. It was argued that the civilian leadership failed to understand how to use military force and improperly restrained the use of force in achieving victory.
Among the first to analyze the war critically was Harry Summers who used Clausewitz as his theoretical basis. He argued that the principal reason for the loss of the Vietnam War was a failure on the part of the political leadership to understand the goal, which was victory.
The Army, always successful on the battlefield, ultimately did not achieve victory because it was misused and misunderstood. Summers argued that the conduct of the war violated many classical principals as described by Clausewitz,  thereby contributing to failure.
He ended his analysis with a "quintessential strategic lesson learned": McMaster  observed that it was easier for officers in the Gulf War to connect national policy to the actual fighting than was the case during Vietnam. He concluded that the Vietnam War had actually been lost in Washington, D. McMaster, who urged a more direct debate between civilians and the military on defense policy and actions, and Summers, who argued for a clear separation between civilians and the military, both pointed out controversies over the proper roles of civilian and military leaders.
Despite those controversies and the apparent lessons learned from the Vietnam War, some theorists recognized a significant problem with Huntington's theory insofar as it appears to question the notion of a separate, apolitical professional military. While there is little argument that separate civilian and military worlds exist, there is significant debate about the proper interaction between the two.
As discussed above, Huntington proposed that the ideal arrangement was one whereby civilian political leaders provided objective control to the military leadership and then stepped back to permit the experts in violence to do what was most effective. He further stated that the most dangerous arrangement was one whereby civilian leaders intruded extensively in the military world, creating a situation whereby the military leadership was not politically neutral and security of the nation was thus threatened both by an ineffective military and by provoking the military to avoid taking orders.
During that time, the military elite had been extensively involved in the politics of defense budgets and management, and yet the United States had managed to emerge successfully from the Cold War. Despite that, none of Huntington's more dire predictions had proven true. In response to this apparent "puzzle," Peter D. Feaver    laid out an agency theory of civil-military relations, which he argued should replace Huntington's institutional theory.
Taking a rationalist approach, he used a principal-agent framework, drawn from microeconomicsto explore how actors in a superior position influence those in a subordinate role. He used the concepts of "working" and "shirking" to explain the actions of the subordinate. In his construct, the principal is the civilian leadership that has the responsibility of establishing policy.
The agent is the military that will work — carry out the designated task — or shirk — evading the principal's wishes and carrying out actions that further the military's own interests.
Civil–military relations - Wikipedia
Shirking at its worst may be disobedience, but Feaver includes such things as "foot-dragging" and leaks to the press. The problem for the principal is how to ensure that the agent is doing what the principal wants done. Agency theory predicts that if the costs of monitoring the agent are low, the principal will use intrusive methods of control. Intrusive methods include, for the executive branch, such things as inspections, reports, reviews of military plans, and detailed control of the budget, and for Congress, committee oversight hearings and requiring routine reports.
For the military agent, if the likelihood that shirking will be detected by the civilian principal is high or if the perceived costs of being punished are too high, the likelihood of shirking is low. Feaver argued that his theory was different from other theories or models in that it was purely deductive, based on democratic theory rather than on anecdotal evidence, and better enabled analysis of day-to-day decisions and actions on the part of the civilian and military leadership.
Huntington concentrated on the relationship between civilian leadership and the military qua institution while Janowitz focused on the relationship of the military qua individuals to American society.
Agency theory provided a link between the two enabling an explanation of how civil-military relations work on a day-to-day basis. Specifically, agency theory would predict that the result of a regime of intrusive monitoring by the civilian leadership combined with shirking on the part of the military would result in the highest levels of civil-military conflict.
Feaver  suggested that post-Cold War developments had so profoundly reduced the perceived costs of monitoring and reduced the perceived expectation of punishment that the gap between what civilians ask the military to do and what the military would prefer to do had increased to unprecedented levels.
Concordance theory[ edit ] After observing that most civil-military theory assumes that the civilian and military worlds must necessarily be separate, both physically and ideologically, Rebecca L.
Schiff offered a new theory—Concordance—as an alternative. Most scholars agree with the theory of objective civilian control of the military Huntingtonwhich focuses on the separation of civil and military institutions.
Such a view concentrates and relies heavily on the U. Schiff provides an alternative theory, from both institutional and cultural perspectives, that explains the U. While concordance theory does not preclude a separation between the civilian and military worlds, it does not require such a state to exist.
Nigerian Army passionate about civilians’ rights – Buratai
She argues that three societal institutions— 1 the military2 political elitesand 3 the citizenry must aim for a cooperative arrangement and some agreement on four primary indicators: Social composition of the officer corps. The political decision-making process. The method of recruiting military personnel. The style of the military. If agreement occurs among the three partners with respect to the four indicators, domestic military intervention is less likely to occur.
In her book, The Military and Domestic Politics, she applied her theory to six international historical cases studies: Other civil-military relations issues[ edit ] Liberal theory and the American Founding Fathers[ edit ] At the heart of civil-military relations is the problem of how a civilian government can control and remain safe from the military institution it created for its own protection. A military force that is strong enough to do what is asked of it must not also pose a danger to the controlling government.
This poses the paradox that "because we fear others we create an institution of violence to protect us, but then we fear the very institution we created for protection".
While armed forces were built up during wartime, the pattern after every war up to and including World War II was to demobilize quickly and return to something approaching pre-war force levels. However, with the advent of the Cold War in the s, the need to create and maintain a sizable peacetime military force engendered new concerns of militarism and about how such a large force would affect civil-military relations in the United States.
Indeed, cordial civil military relations is the base on which the modern state is constructed. Military might in the modern state is conceived as a tool for protecting members of the society from external aggression. In this context, the role of the military is one of protectors of citizens and the community. This new conception is a radical departure from the previous approach where power and the use of military might was conceived as being an instrument for the gratification of the ruler. Indeed, for most of human history, rulers and the law were synonymous.
The law of the land was what the rulers wanted and the exercise of power was rooted in arbitrariness. The modern state is able to promote cordial civil military relations on the basis of the exercise of the rule of law, which developed in the context of the transition from authoritarianism to democratic culture.
One of the major principles of political science is that although force is a central element in political systems, it cannot on its own sustain a polity. Rousseau reminds us that even the strongest is never strong enough to remain the master unless he is capable of transforming force into law and obedience into duty. In Nigeria however, the colonial security apparatus was established to control and extort the people and not to protect them.
Not surprisingly, the security culture that developed was one of repression with an emphasis on coercion and general lack of civility towards the civilian population. Following independence, the democratic regime lasted only six years before the military took over.
This meant that democratic culture did not have enough time to impregnate the security forces. The Second Republic was short lived and the Third Republic never took off. It was only with the Fourth Republic that we have had sustained civilian rule for fourteen years. Unfortunately however, the Fourth Republic has been marred with a serious crisis of insecurity. Law enforcement agents have since colonial times developed a culture of reckless disregard for the rights of the people.
The legal framework has not helped matters given our colonial heritage of laws against vagrancy, illegal assembly, wandering, and illegal procession.