Military administrations, especially those that assume political control through coups, reshape governance in ways that differ markedly from constitutional democracies. Two recurring dynamics in such regimes are loyalty to leadership and the use of patronage networks to manage appointments and maintain control. This article examines these features with reference to historical patterns of military rule in Nigeria, drawing on documented research and scholarly literature.
Loyalty in Military Governments
Military organisations inherently value discipline and hierarchical obedience. Within constitutional systems, this translates into operational command within clearly defined professional structures. However, when the military takes over political power, personal loyalty to the ruler or ruling clique becomes a central pillar of governance. The need to secure support at the top shifts emphasis from institutional norms to personalised networks of allegiance.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
In Nigeria, successive coups such as the overthrow of the civilian government in 1983 and the counter-coup of 1985 that brought Major‑General Ibrahim Babangida to power reflect how factions within the armed forces mobilised loyalty around competing leaders rather than the constitution.
Patronage and Appointment Practices
Patronage refers to the allocation of positions, benefits or privileges in exchange for political support, loyalty or service to the ruling authority. In military administrations, patronage frequently shapes appointments to both military posts and civilian government offices. Studies of Nigerian military rule identify patrimonial characteristics where public authority blends with personal rule, and patron‑client networks influence access to positions and resources.
During periods of military governance in Nigeria, appointments were often influenced by personal relationships, political loyalty and factional alliances, rather than solely by merit or professional credentials. This extended beyond the military into the civil service and public administration, where loyalists and supporters were favoured for key roles.
Impact on Public Institutions and Governance
Erosion of Meritocracy
Centralised appointment practices often replaced civil service rules that prioritised technical competence and seniority. Decision-making became more discretionary, with fewer transparent procedures for recruitment and promotion, undermining professionalism and morale.
Institutional Disruption
Military governance structures such as the Supreme Military Council or the Armed Forces Ruling Council concentrated executive authority and diminished the role of independent civilian institutions. The separation of powers and constitutional safeguards typical of democratic systems were frequently suspended.
Public Service Efficiency
Where appointments favoured loyalty over expertise, public administration often suffered in planning and delivery. Patronage appointments, particularly in bureaucratic roles, diluted effectiveness by placing individuals in positions for which they were not professionally equipped.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
Broader Political Consequences
Military rule in Nigeria was marked by authoritarian and hyper-centralised governance, which posed significant challenges to democratic institutionalisation. Coup politics and regime self-succession frustrated efforts to address deeper issues of political accommodation and economic development. While military administrations sometimes pursued policies aimed at social discipline or economic reform, such as the War Against Indiscipline, these measures coexisted with governance practices that prioritised control and patronage.
Conclusion
Historically, military administrations exhibit patterns of loyalty-based governance and patronage in appointments. These patterns are mechanisms through which military leaders managed governance and appointments. In the Nigerian context, such dynamics influenced how offices were filled, how institutions operated, and how governance was conducted throughout prolonged periods of military rule.
Author’s Note
This article highlights how loyalty and patronage not merely corruption or ethnic bias were mechanisms through which military leaders managed governance and appointments. These patterns affected institutional professionalism, reshaped administrative culture and left enduring legacies for public sector functioning after military rule.
References
Ukana B. Ikpe. Patrimonialism and Military Regimes in Nigeria. African Journal of Political Science.
Military Rule’s Impact on Nigeria’s Democracy. Scribd Document.
Eghosa E. Osaghae. The Long Shadow of Nigeria’s Military Epochs, 1966–79 and 1983–99. Oxford Handbook of Nigerian Politics.
Nigerian Civil Service History. UKEssays.
