The struggle for freedom in Africa has been a complex journey, and the impact of military rule on the continent's psyche is a topic that demands attention. Military rule has failed to eradicate the colonial mindset in Africa, leaving a bitter taste of unfulfilled liberation.
The fight for independence was a valiant effort, but the transition to economic sovereignty remained elusive. The acceptance of Structural Adjustment by Ibrahim Babangida, which Buhari rejected, marked a turning point. It signaled the end of local economic aspirations and the rise of foreign dependence, fueling the 'Japa' exodus from Nigeria.
Despite the efforts of numerous African leaders and activists, the continent's stability has been fragile. The question arises: is civilian rule any better than military rule? Many Africans once believed that military coups were necessary due to the perceived corruption of civilian governments. However, the military's reign exposed its own greed and shattered the idealistic dreams of the first military coup in Nigeria.
Ethnic betrayal hindered the progress of the initial military coup, and military rule across Africa became a source of profound disappointment. The gains made by freedom fighters were erased, and a culture of impunity emerged. Nigeria, once envisioned as the 'Giant of Africa', crumbled under military rule, affecting the entire continent.
The recent clash between the Abuja Administrator and a Lieutenant serves as a stark reminder of Nigeria's colonial past. The Army's training to plan coups and overthrow elected governments persists, and the cheers from the masses echo the support for military takeovers. But here's where it gets controversial: some view this anomaly as courageous!
The Buhari-Idiagbon rule, with its 'War Against Indiscipline', offered a glimmer of hope. It suggested that changing a culture of indiscipline could be swift. Idiagbon was believed to be the force behind Buhari's anti-corruption stance. Their regime instilled fear, leading to a more orderly society.
However, Babangida's suspected involvement in drug trafficking led to a coup against Buhari. Babangida's regime became notorious, even surpassing the severity of Abacha's rule. Babangida later wrote a book glorifying military rule and its supposed benefits to Nigeria, a highly debated perspective.
Buhari, once a symbol of hope, did not retaliate when he became a civilian president. It became evident that without Idiagbon, Buhari's administration was entangled in corruption. The Lieutenant Yerima incident highlights Nigeria's ongoing struggle with the superiority complex of military rule over civilian governance. The Army's derogatory attitude towards civilians persists, and retired generals form a shadow government, exploiting the economy.
The celebration of corruption by Babangida in his book launch is a stark reminder of Nigeria's challenges. His acceptance of Structural Adjustment dealt a fatal blow to the middle class, and the Naira's depreciation began. Nigerians are not oblivious to these issues, and the cheering for military indiscretions is not universally embraced.
Nigeria's paradise-like status in Western Africa, attracting people from Europe, Asia, and America, is a distant memory. The success of Black Americans abroad, in contrast to their struggles at home, raises questions. The dysfunctionality of societies outside Africa for Black individuals, regardless of wealth, is a reality often overlooked. And this is the part most people miss: the cheering for military rule in Nigeria, a country renowned for its intellect, is a paradox.
In conclusion, the impact of military rule on Africa's colonial mentality is a complex issue. The journey towards true liberation continues, and the debate over the role of military and civilian rule remains a controversial topic. What are your thoughts on the legacy of military rule in Africa? Is there a path forward that can truly break free from the colonial mindset?
