For many years, the African continent has been a center for political unrest. Much of that political unrest is blamed on the extended period of European colonization that the continent was forced to endure. Because of ethnic differences, natural resources, and ineffective governments, Africa has been subject to many military takeovers in the postcolonial period.
Military takeovers are not unique to Africa. Like of many similar countries, the developing countries in Africa are naturally more susceptible to coup d’états than their developed counterparts. The perfect storm of economic and social inequities, coupled with the inability to provide for the basic necessities of its citizens often results in a regime change through any means necessary. Military coups are typically not beneficial to the citizens, however; the combination of these factors makes the idea of regime change appealing and as a consequence the prospects of a military takeover are augmented. Unlike other regions, Africa displays an even higher rate of governmental turnover. In fact, since gaining independence, the majority of the 54 African countries have experience a military takeover.
Much of the plight of Africa was determined by its colonization. Almost all of the African was under European colonization at some point. In fact, only two countries on the continent did not experience colonization, Ethiopia and Liberia. While colonization effectively ended about 50 years ago, the effects of colonization are still visible on the continent.
One of the main reasons for political instability in Africa is a result of a lack of unity within nations. Traditional African society was based on tribal affiliations. The relationship between two African tribes was som...
... middle of paper ...
... stable, most African governments appear to be trying to become better. In the future, African governments may be able to avoid the military interventions that hinder their development.
Works Cited
"Divide and Conquer, A European Legacy in Africa." » The Corkonian Anthropologist. Web. 17 Apr. 2012. .
Jenkins, J. C., and Augustine J. Kposowa. "The Political Origins of African Military Coups: Ethnic Competition, Military Centrality, and the Struggle over the Postcolonial State." International Studies Quarterly 36.3 (1992): 271-91. Print.
Johnson, Thomas H., and Robert O. Slater. "Explaining African Military Coups D'Etat, 1960-1982." The American Political Science Review 78.3 (1984): 622-40. Print.
Wood, Ethel. AP Comparative Government and Politics. Reading, Penn.: Woodyard Publications, 2009. Print.
Europe, in the late 1800’s, was starting for a land grab in the African continent. Around 1878, most of Africa was unexplored, but by 1914, most of Africa, with the lucky exception of Liberia and Ethiopia, was carved up between European powers. There were countless motivations that spurred the European powers to carve Africa, like economical, political, and socio–cultural, and there were countless attitudes towards this expansion into Africa, some of approval and some of condemnation.
The Web. 25 Apr. 2014. The 'Standard' of the 'Standard'. "Nationalism in Africa - African Nationalism After World War II." Colonial, Pan, Rule, and Nkrumah.
Military involvement in the country’s politics has become a common feature of modern states. This history of military-government relationship traces its roots back to hundreds of years during the wars of freedom and independence. In some countries, the military is heavily involved in political affairs while others keep politics out of the military. The differences in this relationship among states arise from underlying historical factors of the modern states. This paper considers two states, Germany and Nigeria where military is heavily involved in politics owing to a long history of political warfare fuelled by ethnic pressures and economic challenges. These states are used as a reference point for military involvement in politics and the conditions under which this happens. These examples show that historical and recent conditions make the relationship between government and military very different in African and European context. In the former, weak governments are unable to control military power, while on the later, even in countries with strong military, the political leadership put limits on military power.
During the late 19th century and the early 20th century many of the European nations began their scramble for Africa which caused Many Africans to suffer from violence like wars, slavery and inequality. Although the Europeans felt power as though they were doing a great cause in the African continent during the Scramble for Africa; Africans had many reactions and actions including factors as rebellion for freedom, against the white settlers and violent resistance.
Leander recognizes the paradoxical situation faces by employing private military companies’ forces to solve the security problems in Africa. As a matter of fact, the line between public and private security orders in weak African states has already been blurred (Leander, 2005, p.606). Private forces are inevitable actors in those African states, thus on the one hand, it is argued that encouraging PMCs in Africa is able to restore the order. In the special case of weak African states, the poor conditions and frequent conflicts call for such a “force multiplier” as the PMCs.
By 1885, little to no independent countries existed throughtout the whole African continent. This was due to the imperialism done by strong European countries. Britain, France, Germany, Italy, Portugal, Belgium, and Spain are to blame. There are many possible contributing factors as to why the European countries decided to completely carve up Africa, split it up, imperialize the whole of the continent. Because of the need for resources Africa could supply, the European desire for power, and the European's reaction to the White Man's burden, they took control of almost every square mile in Africa through imperialization.
Problems began for Africa when there was the “scramble for Africa. Africa was extremely divided throughout the continent. There was no nation intact. Even though they were divided into colonies, they still had no sovereignty. Since they had no form of nationalism it made it impossible to succeed as a nation. This really hurt Africa economically. If they would have been able to come together as a nation they could have pulled all of their assets together and exploit them in order to make money. By not doing this it allowed the government to exploit the people. This is why there are starving people in Africa on television. The states of Africa were created in order to make money by exporting all the various resources, whether it was slaves, minerals, or agriculture. There was much to gain by owning a chunk of land in Africa. This reason being because Africa is so rich in their resources for trade. After the race was over it left Africa severely divided.
Africa has always been mysterious to the rest of the world. The Greeks and the Romans traded with the peoples of Northern Africa. However, they thought that the land mass went no farther south than present day Somalia. In fact, Alexander the Great even considered shipping supplies for his armies around this smaller Africa to India. This same idea continued well into the 15th and 16th centuries until it was discovered that Africa has an extremely large southern protrusion making the second largest continent in the world after Asia. These vast areas used to bring Africa wealth well into the 18th and 19th centuries, trading gold, salt, and also people. Their greatest wealth actually came from this slave trade; they wouldn’t trade their friends and brothers but the enemies that they captured in their inter-tribal wars. As the slave trade wore down after the 1880’s the Europeans started to take over large swaths of land. Like in Arabia the strongest European countries came together with a map and some straightedges and divided the continent among them. Soon the countries put in provisional governments and wrote up constitutions in French and English and left them on their relative lonesome. Most of the problems associated with Africa are caused by the misconceptions that Africa got poor but that the rest of the world got rich.
During the 19th century, Europe found a way to use Africa for its own growth and power. Using Africa for their resources, the Europeans colonized Africa without a second thought. European imperialism in Africa had a negative impact because of social disarray, cultural loss, and death it caused. As the Europeans started to invade Africa and split up the land, they paid no attention to the already existing natural boundaries. Over time, villages with different cultures had set these boundaries.
Wa Muiu, Mueni. "Civilization" On Trial: The Colonial And Postcolonial State In Africa." Journal Of Third World Studies 25.1 (2008): 73-93. Sociological Collection. Web. 10 May 2014.
Africa’s struggle to maintain their sovereignty amidst the encroaching Europeans is as much a psychological battle as it is an economic and political one. The spillover effects the system of racial superiority had on the African continent fractured ...
The New Imperialism and the Scramble for Africa 1880-1914. Jeff Taylor, n.d. Web. 19 Mar. 2014.
An overwhelming majority of African nations has reclaimed their independence from their European mother countries. This did not stop the Europeans from leaving a permanent mark on the continent however. European colonialism has shaped modern-day Africa, a considerable amount for the worse, but also some for the better. Including these positive and negative effects, colonialism has also touched much of Africa’s history and culture especially in recent years.
As Nigeria celebrates 100 years of unification between their northern and southern halves, they stand poised to assume a leadership role among African countries. With over 250 different ethnic groups comprising its citizenry, even a nation as successfully diverse as Nigeria can expect to encounter some roadblocks to establish and maintain stability. The biggest threats facing Nigeria today are systemic corruption, terrorist violence, and social/human rights.
The repressive strategy of Buhari’s military further engendered deep resentment and bitterness among the people who felt that they had been denied their personal freedom. In addition, according to Othman, “the military government was increasingly driven by dissension over strategies of economic management, the detention and trials of political detainees and the rising power of Brigadier Tunde Idiagbon, the Chief of Staff, Supreme Headquarters, and the driving force behind the regime’s authoritarian policies, and of the Nigerian Security Organization (NSO)” (Othman, 1999:40). Two factors were instrumental to the final demise of the military regime; one was the risking of what Diamond called “political convulsion”, an attempt to impose a monolithic order on Nigeria’s vigorously polaristic society (Diamond, 1999:443).