Every now and then, someone raises their voice above the hubbub of political commentary and declares in strident tones, "I want a military coup! I want a Rawlings to come and flush out all these corrupt and wicked leaders who continue to bleed Nigeria dry and condemn its citizens to live far, far below their potential!" The typical reaction is to hush such a person; don't they remember the days of Abacha?

Well, it's not surprising that such voices are heard, given the terrible leadership that Nigeria currently labours under. There's also the seduction of how immediate and comprehensive a coup is perceived to be - it's the one stroke that will wash away all our dirt and leave us fresh-scented and sparkling white. But when we are deciding on a course of action, we should not only look at the effect of the action, we also have to look at how likely it is that we will be able to implement the action in the first place. There is no point in talking about inviting a military man to take over if we are not reasonably sure that he will perform the purifying acts that we hope he will. So let us look at the kind of military leader that is likely to emerge from a coup in Nigeria, as opposed to the military leader that we would like to emerge from a coup.

Well, by virtue of their profession, military men are not used to the kind of consensus gathering and dialogue that is needed to forge the kind of workable and sustainable policies that Nigeria needs. Since a military man would come from an organisation where orders are issued and obeyed, he would be likely to see such consultation as a waste of time and promulgate decrees based on whether it looked good to him and a few of his colleagues. This would lead to poorly-thought through laws which would only be implemented for a few months and then forgotten, or laws which would just make things worse. He would also prefer to issue commands to people rather than managing them to get the best out of them - this style might work in a military organisation where subordinates expect to be issued commands, but it would not work as well where people want their feelings to be taken into account and have to be managed differently.

Another aspect to look at in working out what kind of military leader would emerge from a coup is the nature of the military itself. It is a mistake to assume that the military is more virtuous than other segments of society, and therefore more immune to the temptation to steal than the politicians that they have overthrown. The military have been heavily involved in ruling Nigeria and stealing from its treasury for much of its independence. So even if there are ongoing attempts to professionalise the military, there are still many officers who are old enough to remember when the military was a route to riches (and who may even have joined it for that reason). Such officers would not suddenly forget the opportunities open to them for enrichment if they came to power in a coup, no matter how noble their initial intentions might be.

But the biggest problem with a military takeover is the sheer concentration of power and unaccountability that a military head of state has. It is certainly true that there is not much accountability to civilians under an administration that gets to power via selections rather than elections. But at least, the judiciary in some cases have shown that they are willing to challenge the executive; civil society organisations and activists can still voice their protest and embarrass the government into reversing their actions; and even politicians themselves can choose to oppose the government, even if it is for selfish reasons (as happened in the last days of Obasanjo's administration with the third-term saga). In other words, the civilian government may not be democratic, but it like to present itself as being so, and this means that it is somewhat careful of actions that may overtly show it up as undemocratic.

However, a military man who had risked life and limb to shoot his way to power would focus on keeping that power for as long as he could - why should he give it up to some civilian nonentities when he had put his life on the line for it? Since he wouldn't have to please anyone but his colleagues who had brought him to power, and since he would have no need to pretend to be accountable and democratic, he could then wield his power however he liked - usually for the purpose of securing an even firmer hold on power.

So it's highly likely that any military leader that emerges from a coup in Nigeria is going to be someone who comes from a military with history of stealing, someone who does not have the skills it takes to form policy and manage people and someone who has a very strong temptation to hold on to power for for as long as possible. This is not exactly the best advertisement for the kind of leader Nigeria needs right now.

Does this mean that I can not under any circumstances support a coup? Hell no. The reality is that I'm not ideological about democracy - I don't support it for its own sake, but for how it can turn Nigeria into a country where its citizens are able to pursue happy lives. I believe that with democracy, there is a lower probability that we'll end up with a dictator who really will send Nigeria into the abyss, and if real democracy is practiced, people will eventually hopefully learn through bitter experience about how to choose a good leader, and which policies work best.

But I'd support a coup in a heartbeat if it produced a leader who:

- implemented a massive infrastructure development programme, including building or encouraging companies to build power plants, roads and rail;

- upholding the rule of law by strengthening the courts and the police;

- went about attacking corruption without fear or favour;

- cracked down hard on crime;

- removed red tape for Nigeria's businessmean;

- invited Nigerians to have a genuine discussion about political reform with a view to implementing the resolutions in a manner designed to minimise social upheaval;

- returned Nigerians to a system of government which they approved of and which was truly accountable to them;

I might be suspicious at first, but if I saw that he was delivering on all these things, wouldn't care whether he came to power through a coup or not - I would support him wholeheartedly.

However, with the way things are now, it's more likely that if there was a coup today, we'd get an autocratic, power-drunk and inflexible leader who would make things worse... so it doesn't make sense for me to join the chorus for a coup at this moment.

Robot  # 1 | 22.01.2009 00:57

Every now and then, someone raises their voice above the hubbub of political commentary and declares in strident tones, "I want a military coup! I want a Rawlings to come and flush out all these corrupt and wicked leaders who continue to bleed Nigeria dry and condemn its citizens to live far, far below their potential!" The typical reaction is to hush such a person; don't they remember the days of Abacha? Well, it's not surprising that such voices are heard, given the terrible leadership that Nigeria currently labours under. There's also the seduction of how immediate and comprehensive a coup is perceived to be - it's the one stroke that will wash away all our dirt and leave us fresh-scented and sparkling white. But when we are deciding on a course of action, we should not only look at the effect of the action, we also have to look at how likely it is that we will be able to implement the action in the first place. There is no point in talking about inviti...Read the full article.

emenanjo  # 2 | 22.01.2009 02:03

"However, with the way things are now, it's more likely that if there was a coup today, we'd get an autocratic, power-drunk and inflexible leader who would make things worse... so it doesn't make sense for me to join the chorus for a coup at this moment." Dear Shoko, The above is the fear that most people in Ghana harboured when Rawlings came but the guy came and proved otherwise, and today Ghana is better of for it. I don't harbour such fear because I know that there are coups and there are COUPS.

Iyke  # 3 | 22.01.2009 04:27

Dear Shoko, I am doubting your sense of logic. you will support a coup if the coup-plotter will do all you have wished. well this is what we call a post-factum argument. you will support only when the person must have done. but wait the coup takes place before such things will start. so you will support the coup based on the promises of the coup plotter. well that has been the justification for every coup. so you better find another argument that is not postfactum.

denker  # 4 | 22.01.2009 05:28

SLB, you're lucky say you bi inlaw, if nobi so i for finish you right now...thx your gods...lol!

Godwin  # 5 | 22.01.2009 06:08

Coup AGAIN!. May your wish not come true.

Mikky jaga  # 6 | 22.01.2009 06:36

The only coup I will support is the Orkar type that will, with one stroke remove the feudal few that have been so reluctant to let Nigeria have a true Federalism. But, such is a pipe dream in Nigeria where the route to power, even in the military, is your submission to the status quo. Any other coup, even though it promises an eldorado, is a bloody waste of time.

maxsiollun  # 7 | 22.01.2009 11:35

A coup under any guise would set Nigeria's political clock back several decades.

Shoko Loko Bangoshe  # 8 | 22.01.2009 11:41

=Iyke;316228>Dear Shoko, I am doubting your sense of logic. you will support a coup if the coup-plotter will do all you have wished. well this is what we call a post-factum argument. you will support only when the person must have done. but wait the coup takes place before such things will start. so you will support the coup based on the promises of the coup plotter. well that has been the justification for every coup. so you better find another argument that is not postfactum. Iyke, if you read the article, you would see this: I might be suspicious at first, but if I saw that he was delivering on all these things, wouldn't care whether he came to power through a coup or not - I would support him wholeheartedly. (Emph. added) So I wouldn't support a coup-plotter based on his promises alone - that would be gullibility. Anyway, what I don't understand is the reason why anyone else wouldn't support such a coup if the leader was delivering on his promises.

chima Ezike  # 9 | 22.01.2009 16:13

Shoko, You must be out of your cool senses to wish for any form of the man with a gun taking over power and leading us again. The worst civilian leadership is better than the best NIGERIAN coup plotter!!!!! Period.

salstep  # 10 | 22.01.2009 17:17

=chima Ezike;316481>Shoko, You must be out of your cool senses to wish for any form of the man with a gun taking over power and leading us again. The worst civilian leadership is better than the best NIGERIAN coup plotter!!!!! Period. U LIE!!!! Nigeria needs the BIG BANG. A Rawlings style coup is the only solution

---

The conversation continues in our forum. Click here to read all comments

---