Theories of Military Intervention and the Impact of Military Rule in Nigeria (Pols 202)

Introduction

Military intervention in politics — the seizure of governmental power by the armed forces — has been a recurring feature of post-colonial African states, Nigeria included. Scholars have advanced several theories to explain why soldiers leave the barracks for the seat of government: some stress the socio-economic conditions that weaken civilian institutions, others stress the military's self-image as guardian of the constitution, and others still stress the way one successful coup emboldens officers elsewhere. This note sets out these theories before assessing, briefly, the record of military rule in Nigeria.

Lt. Col Yakubu Gowon

Socio-Economic Development Theory

Socio-economic development increases the number of potential political actors and distributes political resources to actors willing and able to sustain civilian institutions. The primary claim is that economic development diminishes the propensity for military intervention, since growing socio-economic complexity puts public administration beyond the skills the armed forces alone can offer.

Conversely, underdevelopment breeds instability. Low levels of economic development often produce social unrest, political violence, and party disorder, which weaken civilian institutions. Where political institutions are ineffective or corrupt, the military may come to see itself as the only organized institution capable of governing.

Military as a modernizing force: the military may justify intervention by claiming it can accelerate development, impose administrative discipline, and eliminate corruption.

Legitimacy through performance: military regimes typically seek public support by promising economic reform, infrastructural development, and national unity.

Custodian Theory

According to Dike (2003), custodian theory holds that the military is the custodian of the nation's constitution, and as such feels compelled to intervene when constitutional propriety is being violated. Huntington (1968) similarly stressed that the military will intervene when the civilian government has lost legitimacy — through inadequate electoral support and an ineffective executive — and will tend to replace weak and unstable political regimes.

Key assumptions:

1. The military is guardian of the nation, with a duty to protect national sovereignty, territorial integrity, and constitutional order.
2. Civilian governments can lose legitimacy: when a government becomes corrupt or ineffective, it forfeits its moral right to govern.
3. Military intervention is justified only in exceptional circumstances — the coup is viewed as a last resort to restore order.
4. Intervention is meant to be temporary; military rulers are expected to organize elections and return power to civilians once order is restored.

Demonstration Effect / Contagion Theory

This theory argues that military coups spread through a demonstration or contagion effect. Once a military successfully seizes power in one country, it sets an example that encourages officers in other countries with similar political and socio-economic conditions to attempt the same. Where a coup demonstrates that intervention is possible — and may even be accepted domestically and internationally — it becomes a process of learning and imitation: officers observe successful coups elsewhere, become convinced civilian government can be overthrown, and replicate the strategy at home.

Key assumptions:

1. Coups are contagious: Military officers learn from one another.
2. Shared political and socio-economic conditions facilitate intervention.
3. Regional influence matters: interventions are more likely to spread within the same region, owing to geographical proximity and shared historical and political experience.

Centrality Theory

Centrality theory holds that the greater the military's share of state resources — relative to the national economy — the weaker civil society's institutions, and the greater the probability of military intervention. Larger armies with greater access to national resources and revenues have historically been more prone to staging coups. A related strand of the theory emphasizes organization: a centralized chain of command, military discipline, and extensive internal communication make officers a cohesive group, well placed to organize an effective seizure of power.

Impact of Military Rule in Nigeria

Strengths / Achievements

1. The military defended the sovereignty and unity of the country, notably during the Civil War (1967–1970), where the Gowon administration's effort to keep Nigeria one was itself an act of nation-building. At the end of the Civil War, the Gowon administration's 3Rs policy — Reconciliation, Reconstruction, Rehabilitation — helped heal the aftermath of the war; destroyed bridges, markets, and factories were rebuilt. 
2. The National Youth Service Corps (NYSC) was established in 1973, alongside federal unity schools such as the Federal Government Colleges, King's College, and Queen's College, as further instruments of national integration.
3. In 1973, the naira and kobo replaced the pound, a colonial-era currency — unlike most Francophone African states, which retained the CFA franc, Nigeria (like Ghana, The Gambia, and Sierra Leone) adopted an indigenous currency with national symbols.
4. The military expanded the federation through successive rounds of state creation: 12 states (1967), 19 states (1976), 21 states (1987), 30 states (1991), and 36 states (1996).
5. A uniform, single-tier system of local government was introduced in 1976.
6. Education expanded, with more post-primary institutions established and universal primary education introduced, improving the supply of skilled manpower to the economy.
7. Agriculture was targeted through programmes such as Operation Feed the Nation, aimed at boosting food and cash-crop production toward self-sufficiency.
8. The military took the decision to relocate the Federal Capital Territory from Lagos to Abuja.
9. Indigenization decrees nationalized and transferred ownership of many foreign-owned companies to Nigerians.
10. The military successfully handed over power to a civilian government in 1979 under a new constitution.
11. Regimes attempted to curb corruption and crime through measures such as the public execution of convicted armed robbers and the War Against Indiscipline (WAI).

Weaknesses / Failures

1. Military rule often disregarded and was hostile to public opinion.
2. The political crisis precipitated by military intervention was closely bound up with the outbreak of the Civil War, which claimed an enormous number of lives.
3. Military regimes were widely noted for violating fundamental human rights.

Conclusion

Taken together, these theories suggest that military intervention is rarely explained by a single cause: weak civilian institutions, contested legitimacy, regional contagion, and the military's own organizational strength all interact. Nigeria's experience illustrates this — military rule delivered genuine nation-building achievements (currency reform, state creation, local government reform, the NYSC) alongside serious costs in civil liberties, accountability, and, ultimately, the Civil War itself. The record is best read as mixed rather than uniformly good or bad.