Some political theorists believe that any slightest military interference with the polity of a nation is an aberration and thus be rejected. This classical view is anchored on the fact that military rule in history of the world has always produced negative results. That is why every military government is not thought fashionable and civilised.
It is on record that most military governments in Africa are worse than ever imagined compared with the rest of the world. Perhaps this belief is primarily based on the violations of human rights and gross record of corruption. General Sani Abacha of Nigeria is a classical example of this experience. No doubt that Gani Fawehinmi once remarked that the worst democratic rule is better than any military regime however thought the best.
It has also been said that the revolutionary manner in which the military comes to power whether bloody or not destroys the existing legal order in force in a way not anticipated. Hence the major target when this government takes over power is the suspension and modifications of the constitution to create ways for their arbitrary rule. This is deeply rooted in the decrees of many military governments.
Developing African states are embracing the democratic traditions as a means to pursue growth and progress for sustainable development of their respective states. Others have hidden behind the masks to perpetuate acts which are tantamount to ruin their nations while the international communities are bound to accepting them irrespective of the failure of democracy in their states. This is because the requirement for the membership of intergovernmental organisations like Africa Union and United Nations is the practice of democracy and the no condition is placed as to quality of the practice.
Global attention has shifted in this century to African states. Perhaps not because of the emergence of statehood in the continent but due to leadership deficit in the region. This has continued to earn Africa negative appellations such as haven for terrorists, bank of corruption, political instability continent, etc.
Among the failed states in the world, statistics measures African states at the apex. Evidence is the rank of Teodoro Obiang Nguema Mbasogo, the world’s longest-serving head of state from Equatorial Guinea. This is an unfortunate political development for Africa having a single man as a leader of million populations for close to forty years.
Zimbabwe too has continued to ruin her prosperity and sustainable growth in one man for thirty-seven years. Since the ZANU-PF took over government for the last thirty-seven years, change in the leadership of the country became impossible.
The electorate have been denied the fair chance to decide for the leadership of their state. Living under worst conditions of life, UN global assistance has been rejected at frequent intervals with the arrogating pretence of Mugabe that the nation could feed her citizens without any external aid. But for any citizen to have opportunity to basic necessity such as food in the country, he must be a card carrying member of ZANU-PF, a strategic plan Mugabe has used over the years to cling to power.
The Zimbabwe government under the administration of Robert Mugabe has led the country among the poorest states in the continent as a result of poor economic status of the state. Mugabe has blamed the West for his predicament. He however in consideration of his age, he wanted to transit power to his wife Grace Mugabe, an obvious mockery on the Zimbabweans which irritated the military to take power forcefully.
With the recent military incursion in the affairs of the Zimbabwean government, it is expected that the military would chart a new course for the state at least in years to come or a constitution of interim government with the military supervision.
Although the world has been anticipating for regime change in Zimbabwe, such change however radical is expected to be in line with the world considered civilised manner (though Mugabe never provided the avenue). AU and the UN have accepted the regime of Mugabe in theory but they required the dynamism of democracy to reflect in the Zimbabwe’s system. The likes of UN and African elder statesman Kofi Annan have continued to press for reforms in states in Africa under the charcoal of democracy with life political leaders.
Likely reactions of AU and UN to the military intervention in Zimbabwe is obvious. First, the state’s membership of the organisation would be withdrawn while lobbying with the military government to chart transition to democracy. One can see this demonstration from the AU delegation headed by South African government that the organisation will not accept any coup in Zimbabwe.
Since military government is a masquerade of double faces, the Zimbabweans are in need of prayers that the objective of taking over the government is not substituted for the personal interests of the ‘kaki boys’. This could be viewed from the experience of Nigeria and other African states where the objectives of military incursions became subjectives. It is hopeful that the military in Zimbabwe will not take the country and her people for granted.
What has just happened in Zimbabwe is a message to the like of Teodoro, Moseveni and host of others to be prepared that one cannot take the crowd at all times for granted simply because he is in charge for the moment. Africa’s hope is becoming obvious in Zimbabwe.
Otiwe writes from Lokoja, Kogi state
