Demilitarization of Rural Area and Migration
In most parts of Africa, the politics of the gun has taken precedence over the politics of dialogue, negotiation and consensus. Armed conflicts, violent inter-communal clashes, wars, rebellions, unending inter-state border disputes and genocide are some of the features of political life in Africa. From the Horn of Africa, to the Great Lakes region, to North and West Africa, a debilitating picture of deep political crisis is palpable. For example, in sub-Saharan Africa, by the end of 1994, no less than 12 countries were at war, two in the early post-war phase and 14 had a record or experience of significantly high levels of political violence. In all, a total of 28 countries, more than half of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa were afflicted by serious violent conflicts at this period. By 1996, about 16 countries were at war. The effects of political conflicts in Africa have been quite damaging to the African society. Increasing poverty, hunger, diseases, escalating refugee problems, human rights abuses and a political environment inhospitable to development are what suffice.
In Nigeria, the “rule of the gun” by the military in the last 15 years (1984-1999) elicited tremendous conflicts in the Nigerian society. The militarization of politics and the denial of political space to civil society groups and other political actors by the military, provoked severe conflicts in the Nigerian society. In addition, the political misrule and economic mismanagement of the military during this period, exacerbated the contradictions in the Nigerian political economy. Inter-communal clashes, violent agitation by minority groups especially in the Niger delta, student unrest, strikes, demonstrations and violence became the norm of social and political life.
The state itself relished in the culture of violence and virulent repression of its citizens. Although a military disengagement process often euphemistically referred to as Transition to Civil Rule Program was recently completed in Nigeria,5 to what extent has the project of demilitarization been accomplished in Nigeria? Is military disengagement from politics synonymous with demilitarization? What is the linkage between demilitarization and democratization? How can a democratic re-orientation of the state and civil society be engineered in a country, which was badly devastated by ruthless military dictatorship, domination and savagery for the last 15 years? These are some of the salient issues which this paper seeks to address. Our objective is to provide a theoretical and of course, practical basis, through which a stable democratic order can be negotiated and achieved in Nigeria.
In extant literature, the concept of demilitarization implies the “disengagement” or “withdrawal” of the military from the political arena. This definition of demilitarization follows logically from its antonyms, that is, militarization and militarism. Militarization is viewed as the armed build-up and engagement of society, through military coups, authoritarian regimes, war, armed conflicts, internal military intervention and the dominance of patriarchal powerful military and repressive state apparatuses; while militarism refers to the pervasiveness in society of symbols, values, discourses validating military power.7 The implicit assumption in the above conception of demilitarization therefore is that as the military withdraws from the political arena, these identified practices and norms associated with militarization and militarism would be vitiated and the polity and society would seek a civil balance.
However, this definition is more formalistic and structural, rather than process-based, and does not capture the twists and nuances in the notion of demilitarization. The problematic of this definition arises primarily from its simplistic casualty or symmetry between militarization/militarism and military rule. The point to emphasize is that the practice of militarization and militarism is not synonymous with only military rule (but present also in civil regimes) hence, these practices do not simply get abrogated with the withdrawal of the military from the political arena. More especially, post-military states usually have entrenched norms and practices of militarism which are not easily deconstructed or eradicated with the formal transfer of political power from the military to civilians.
Our conceptualization of demilitarization therefore must transcend the idea of the formal withdrawal of the military from the political arena. It must include the deconstruction of the ideological and institutional structures of militarism and authoritarian ethos, and the reassertion of civil control and democratic culture over the organs of the state, economy and civil society. The latter (i.e. civil society) although outside the state arena, usually gets acculturated with the symbols, language, values and norms of militarism under military rule, which require being addressed and deconstructed in a post-military era. It is when demilitarization is conceived in this broader sense, that it provides a linkage with the concept of democratization. Democratization involves the creation and expansion of the political space for multiple actors to interact, negotiate, compete, and seek political self-realization, within set and permissible rules. Democratization is a process through which the institutional infrastructures germane to the construction of a democratic polity are established (e.g. Parliament, independent and impartial Judiciary and Police, press etc.), civil liberties are codified and guaranteed, the rule of law suffices and a process of constitutionalism engineered.9 Democratization should be viewed not as an event, but a continuous process, implicit with struggles and contradictions and could be fitful, perfunctory, rough and tough.
Demilitarization and democratization are therefore set in an organic linkage on two basic grounds. Firstly, is on their background and object. They both constitute attempts at the reconstruction of the political order from an autocratic, to a relatively more open political system. Secondly, they are in real senses, products of social and political struggles, meant to emancipate a people. The end result of both when properly concretized, should be the establishment of a democratic political order and society.
