In recent years, there has been a surge of military coups in several African countries including Mali, Niger, Burkina Faso, Sudan, and Guinea. Military rule, once dormant in African politics, has made a comeback.
The coup leaders have cracked down on protests, censored the media, and resorted to violence in the name of public safety. They justify their actions by claiming to protect their people from both internal and external threats – some of which are fabricated to legitimize their power grabs, while others are genuine (although military regimes have arguably exacerbated violent extremism, they did not create it).
The power struggle among the generals has led to conflicting coups in Burkina Faso and a full-blown civil war in Sudan.
In West Africa, the military interventions have reshaped the geopolitical landscape, distancing France and the United States while forging closer ties with the Russian Federation (specifically, Russia-funded mercenaries).
Observers, both internal and external, were caught off guard by these developments. Military rule, with its outdated aesthetics and Cold War associations, seemed like a thing of the past. The explanations for its resurgence have mainly focused on external interference, particularly from Russia. Others point to the inherent flaws of African states – the poverty and corruption that have plagued them since independence, leading to disillusionment with democracy.
As a military historian, I have been alarmed to witness the historical narratives of military dictatorships in the 1980s resurface as current events. The coups in recent years mark a return to one of the most significant political traditions in independent Africa: militarism.
Militarism blurs the lines between military objectives and politics, with the values of the armed forces permeating the broader state values.
The recent spate of coups in West Africa must be viewed within the broader context of postcolonial history. The military regimes of the past were innovative in their brutality, establishing new rules, institutions, and standards for societal interaction. They promised to create an orderly and prosperous Africa, although they ultimately failed, their promises resonated with many.
Africa’s Military Regimes
Military dictatorships governed through force rather than consensus, yet many people admired their disciplined approach. The military’s authoritarian rule had an appeal to those who sought order in a chaotic world. Independence did not always equate to freedom, and the rigid ideals of soldiers influenced decolonization in ways that are still being unraveled.
Long overshadowed by more optimistic ideologies, militarism is now resurfacing in African politics. My book outlines the origins and persistence of militarism in Africa.
Petty and Paranoid
Between 1956 and 2001, there were numerous successful coups, failed attempts, and plots across sub-Saharan Africa. Some countries experienced multiple coups (such as Sudan with 18 known attempts since 1950) while others remained coup-free (like Botswana). The threat of military takeovers influenced civilian governance even in countries where the military did not hold power.
Successful coups led to durable military regimes, with leaders promising transitional or custodial rule before returning power to civilians – a promise that often went unfulfilled, resulting in decades-long military rule characterized by stability or constant turmoil.
Military governments were marked by pettiness and paranoia, with officers constantly wary of internal rivals. These regimes championed militarism as a coherent vision for society, with distinct political values, morals, and economic principles.
The officers who seized power sought to reshape their societies along military lines, believing that strict discipline would bring true freedom. They envisioned utopian societies based on military principles, with ideologies spanning the political spectrum.
Militarism was a unique ideology, distinct from Western influences, with officers proud of their independence from external control.
Military Tyranny
Militarism’s appeal lay in its maverick independence, with military regimes often cutting ties with unpopular foreign powers. Soldiers governed their countries like they fought wars, viewing politics as a combat scenario where winning was paramount, even if casualties occurred.
However, defining “winning” in a scenario where the enemy was the civilian population led to crackdowns on perceived threats like indiscipline, drugs, and crime, blurring the lines between military rule and tyranny.
Military dictatorships failed to achieve the martial utopia they promised, facing resistance from other government entities, judiciaries, civil society groups, and external forces. Their blame-shifting tactics in the face of challenges mirrored those of their predecessors.
While today’s military regimes may lack the long-term visions of their predecessors, their prolonged stay in power raises concerns about their future plans. Despite promises to return to the barracks, their grip on power shows no signs of loosening.
Anticipating the actions of Africa’s military regimes requires a look back at history, where military regimes once promised to create a “soldier’s paradise.” This promise continues to shape their strategies today.
(Author: Samuel Fury Childs Daly, Associate Professor of History, University of Chicago)
(Disclosure Statement: Samuel Fury Childs Daly does not have any financial interests or affiliations that could be perceived as a conflict of interest.)
This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
(Except for the headline, this story has not been edited by NDTV staff and is published from a syndicated feed.)
