In many states, particularly in post-colonial Africa, Asia, and Latin America, the armed forces have historically held a dual role: defending national borders and, at times, directly governing the state. This combination of military power and political authority has shaped national histories, altered governance structures, and influenced civil-military relations in profound ways. Understanding this dual role helps explain why some nations experience prolonged instability and how military involvement affects democracy and state development.
Defining Military Rule
Military rule occurs when the armed forces assume predominant political authority, usually following a coup d’état. Military regimes, often called juntas, operate through councils of senior officers and may suspend constitutions or limit democratic processes. Unlike authoritarian civilian governments, military regimes rely on the institution of the military as the governing authority.
EXPLORE NOW: Military Era & Coups in Nigeria
Historical Emergence of Military Rule
Modern military rule became prominent after the Second World War. Newly independent nations, particularly in Africa, faced fragile political institutions, economic challenges, and ethnic divisions. In these contexts, the military often claimed the role of stabiliser and arbiter.
Nigeria is a notable example. Following independence in 1960, the country experienced multiple coups. In 1966, two major coups led to civil war and initiated decades of military governance, interrupted only occasionally by brief civilian rule. Military leaders justified their intervention as necessary to maintain national unity and restore order during periods of political instability.
Why Militaries Intervene in Politics
Military intervention is rarely the result of a single factor. Common motivations include political instability and weak institutions that limit civilian governance, internal military dynamics including officer rivalries, economic crises and social unrest that threaten national cohesion, and ethnic or regional tensions that the military claims to manage neutrally. However, motivations vary by country and era, and not all interventions are driven by corruption or personal ambition.
Effects of Military Rule on Governance
Military governance has historically produced consistent patterns. Democratic institutions are often eroded through suspension of constitutions, closure of parliaments, and restrictions on political parties. Civil institutions are weakened as civilian administrative bodies are sidelined. Military influence frequently persists after transitions to civilian rule, with former military elites retaining informal power. Authority tends to be centralised, prioritising control and stability over inclusive governance and long-term development. In Nigeria, decades of military regimes left enduring impacts on political institutions and public trust, illustrating these dynamics.
Impact on Military Professionalism
Military professionalism emphasises discipline, technical expertise, and readiness for combat. When the armed forces engage in governance, professional priorities can become politicised. While some military regimes maintain operational capability, prolonged political engagement often blurs lines between political loyalty and military merit. Civilian oversight strengthens military professionalism and ensures the armed forces remain focused on their primary defence role.
Global Trends and Transitions
Military rule has declined globally since the end of the Cold War. Reduced superpower support for coups, international pressure, and the spread of democratic norms have limited the prevalence of overt military governance. Transitions from military to civilian rule can occur through negotiated pacts, elections, or constitutional reforms, though military influence frequently persists informally.
EXPLORE: Nigerian Civil War
Lessons
The experience of military regimes demonstrates that intervention can provide short-term stability but often undermines democratic development and civil institutions. Clear separation between military and civilian authority is essential for institutional stability. Successful governance and defence require the military to focus on national security while civilian authorities manage political administration.
The army’s dual role as both a war-fighting institution and a political authority has profound implications for national governance. Historical evidence shows that while military rule can stabilise states temporarily, it often weakens democracy, civil institutions, and public trust. For stable, effective governance, the military must remain professional, apolitical, and subordinate to civilian leadership, preserving its role as protector rather than ruler.
Author’s Note
Military involvement in governance is a recurring historical phenomenon, particularly in states with weak institutions. While armed forces may assume power to restore order, evidence shows this often undermines democracy, prolongs institutional fragility, and complicates governance. Understanding the dual role of the military helps citizens, scholars, and policymakers appreciate the importance of civilian oversight, strong institutions, and professionalised militaries for long-term stability.
References
Military rule information was drawn from Britannica articles on military regimes and their mechanisms and impacts, alongside scholarly research on Nigeria’s military history, particularly the Oxford Handbook of Nigerian Politics covering 1966–1999.
