Military rule has repeatedly reshaped how the state relates to ordinary people. When armed forces take political power, violence often stops being a last resort and starts functioning as a routine tool of government. The shift is not only about more arrests or more fear, it is about how the state rewrites the meaning of dissent, reorganises institutions around security, and weakens or removes accountability.
This transformation has appeared across regions and decades, especially in parts of Latin America and Africa during the twentieth century. While every country’s experience differs, a common pattern emerges when military institutions govern civilian life. Decision making becomes centralised within security structures, opposition is framed as a threat to national survival, and extraordinary measures are treated as ordinary governance.
The legal switch, how emergencies become permanent habits
Many military regimes claim they are responding to chaos, corruption, or national danger. Their first major move is often legal, not merely military. Constitutions are suspended or bypassed. Civilian courts lose authority. Emergency regulations expand state power.
This matters because violence becomes easier to justify when it is wrapped in legal language. Detention without charge, restrictions on assembly, and censorship can be presented as lawful necessities. Over time, citizens learn to live under a state of exception that feels ordinary, because it is renewed, reissued, and normalised through routine administration.
Even where a regime does not declare a formal permanent war, the repeated use of siege powers and emergency decrees can create a lasting climate of fear and control, with fewer legal paths for victims to challenge abuse.
EXPLORE NOW: Democratic Nigeria
Chile under Pinochet, repression as an organised system
After the September 1973 coup in Chile, the military government constructed a security state built around emergency powers and military authority. Constitutional protections were curtailed, political activity was tightly controlled, and security agencies were given wide discretion. Subsequent investigations documented serious human rights violations, including unlawful detention, torture, and enforced disappearance.
What makes the Chilean case significant is not only the presence of repression, but the way it was organised. Intelligence operations functioned as part of an institutional system rather than isolated actions. Detention and interrogation sites existed within broader security structures, supported by chains of command and justified through anti subversion doctrine.
As a result, state violence became procedural. Arrests occurred without explanation. People vanished into opaque systems. Families faced silence reinforced by bureaucracy. When repression is framed as national defence, fear is presented as the price of stability, and the public is pressured to accept it.
Argentina’s dictatorship, disappearance as a method of rule
Argentina’s military dictatorship from 1976 to 1983 described its mission as a national reorganisation. Public language avoided open acknowledgment of terror, yet the period became defined by enforced disappearance, secret detention centres, torture, and extrajudicial killing.
Thousands were removed from public life with little or no legal trace. One of the most devastating aspects of disappearance was its lasting uncertainty. Victims were taken, but families were denied knowledge, closure, or legal recognition. This uncertainty functioned as a form of control, extending fear beyond the individual to entire communities.
Repression did not always operate through perfect coordination, but it repeatedly succeeded in blocking information, obstructing legal remedies, and sustaining denial. In this environment, violence did not need to be constantly visible to be effective. The threat alone reshaped daily behaviour. People learned what not to say, where not to gather, and whom not to trust.
Uganda under Idi Amin, power enforced through fear and loyalty
Uganda under Idi Amin illustrates another form of military rule, one where violence appeared more personal and unpredictable, yet remained deeply political. Amin relied on loyal military and security units, and his rule became associated with widespread killings and repression of perceived opponents.
Life under such a regime was shaped by uncertainty. Survival often depended on silence, loyalty, and avoiding attention. Even without extensive bureaucracy, violence became normal through repetition and fear. People adapted their lives around risk, learning that the state was not a source of protection, but a force to be endured.
Different methods led to the same outcome. Violence became expected, and public participation shrank.
How military rule makes violence feel normal
Redefining dissent as treason
Military governments frequently treat opposition as subversion rather than disagreement. Once critics are labelled enemies, harsh measures become easier to justify.
Concentrating authority in security institutions
When governance is dominated by military, police, and intelligence leadership, the state operates through threat management rather than public service.
Weakening oversight and accountability
Independent judges, journalists, unions, and civic groups are often restricted or dismantled. Without scrutiny, abuses become easier to commit and harder to challenge.
Spreading psychological control
Violence is not only physical. Surveillance, intimidation, and censorship reshape speech and relationships. Over time, fear replaces trust as the organising principle of society.
Creating impunity that outlasts the regime
Even after transitions to civilian rule, accountability can be delayed or limited. When justice arrives slowly, the message that state violence carries few consequences can persist.
The long shadow, what remains after the uniforms step back
The end of military rule does not instantly undo the systems it created. Security agencies may retain influence. Legal habits formed under emergency governance may persist. Societies may carry trauma across generations.
Truth seeking efforts have helped establish public records and acknowledge suffering, but documentation alone does not erase loss. Many families continue to live with unanswered questions, delayed justice, and memories shaped by fear. Military rule leaves institutional and psychological traces that are difficult to dismantle.
READ MORE: Ancient & Pre-Colonial Nigeria
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
Conclusion, the warning inside the pattern
Military rule does not invent violence from nothing. Many societies already contain inequality, weak institutions, or harsh policing traditions. But when soldiers govern, force and discipline often move to the centre of political life. Violence becomes easier to justify, harder to challenge, and more likely to settle into routine.
The lesson is not that every soldier is brutal, or that every military institution is identical. The lesson is clearer. When accountability weakens and force replaces civic responsibility, brutality becomes easier to normalise, and harder to reverse.
Author’s Note
Military takeovers often arrive wrapped in promises of order, stability, and protection, yet history shows how quickly those assurances can harden into habits of fear. The most damaging violence is not always dramatic or visible, it is the kind that becomes routine, the silence that feels necessary for survival, and the public life that slowly and quietly disappears. Remembering this pattern matters, because when societies forget how repression becomes ordinary, they become vulnerable to its return. The language may change and the uniforms may change, but security without accountability has repeatedly demanded a human price.
References
Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Chile, Report on Human Rights Violations, 1991
CONADEP, Nunca Más, The Report of the Argentine National Commission on the Disappeared, 1984
Human Rights Watch, State of Fear, Human Rights Abuses under Military Rule
