|
What Role for Soldiers in Emerging Democracies?
(Responsibility to protect democracy)*
WASHINGTON - As democratic elections come to Africa, the legitimacy of state institutions that for years buttressed one-man, one-party rule is increasingly coming under question by newly liberated voters. And the military is no exception.
Africa watchers as well as new voters in Benin, Cape Verde, and Zambia, where recent multi-party elections were held - their first in years - are asking what role, if any, soldiers, who were used in the past to suppress political opposition, have in their nations’ democratisation process.
Opinions vary about what to do with military forces that range from Angola’s 250 000 troops to demobilising soldiers, as Angola and Ethiopia are currently doing.
Carrying this idea to the extreme of total demobilisation, a goal might be reached of having no standing army at all - similar to what the Central American republic of Costa Rica achieved in the late 1940s. The thought here is that the territorial defence of borders and internal security can be done more efficiently and at less cost by a national guard, or expanded gendarmerie.
But another suggestion - to use the military as a type of guardian of the democratic process now sweeping Africa - is also finding supporters. And prime among the backers of that idea is US Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs Herman Cohen.
Cohen recently spoke with US Information Agency reporters about current events in Africa and his hopes for 1992 and beyond.
Democratisation was high on his list of priorities. He thought that while African militaries may not have "a direct role" in the democratisation process, "they do have the responsibility to protect democracy."
This means, Cohen said, that "in those areas where there have been close relationships between the military and the single-party political leadership," the military "must remain neutral and allow the democratic process to play itself out".
What happened in Togo recently, Cohen pointed out, was the opposite. "The military intervened to interrupt the democratic process". This, he remarked, was unacceptable.
The point is that "when democracy succeeds, as in Benin the military must be completely loyal to the new system," the official emphasised.
One fact is becoming evident: African nations, with their depressed economies, can no longer support the type of military spending that resulted in the continent’s registering the second fastest rate of growth in armed forces during the 1980’s. That statistic is from the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency’s latest report on military expenditures world-wide.
Given a choice of spending on the military or on education, health, and infrastructure, international donors like the World Bank s well as African voters are beginning to insist that development take precedence.
The US government believes, Cohen said, that "certainly, in those areas were the military was at the base of the government ... taking a disproportionate share of the resources ... they should be downsized."
He added that "in those countries where there were wars, it was quite natural that armies were getting larger percentages of the budget." But now, "where there is peace, as in Ethiopia and Angola, armies that were 250 000 men must be reduced to sizes that are normal for peacetime, such as 40 000 or 50 000 men."
At the same time, Cohen observed that African armies which are "well trained and have good skills can be helpful in such things as reconstruction of infrastructure - as they are doing in Eritrea. The army that defeated Mengistu is now rebuilding ... roads and bridges."
Another example of an appropriate peacetime function for the military, Cohen mentioned, is "protecting resources, such as offshore fisheries" from theft by "unscrupulous foreign fishing fleets."
Opposed altogether to the idea of African military involvement in democratisation is George Ayittey, a Ghanaian economist who teaches at American University in Washington.
Ayittey, who recently authored a book on indigenous African institutions, believes that "standing armies have never been a feature of traditional African society" and that therefore they can have "absolutely no useful role" in achieving a lasting form of African democracy.
Modern African armies are colonial creations, he recently told a World Bank seminar. And they became and still remain enthusiastic servants of leaders - "Vampire Elites" - who continue to dominate and loot the governments of many African nations.
In many places in Africa these armies "are now totally out of control," Ayittey added, and are unlikely to hold themselves accountable to elected officials because they have never had any allegiance to the public.
Cohen’s chief political/military adviser in the State Department’s African bureau, Charles Snyder, disagrees with Ayittey’s assessment of Africa’s non-military past.
In a recent interview, he pointed out that a number of former African empires were "military entities," with Shaka Zulu, for example, developing the idea of "a nation at arms" in which all of Zulu society could be mobilised on a war footing.
Snyder, a former infantry officer who has been an adviser to African troops, said he thought African soldiers could make a contribution to the changes taking place on the continent, but only after they converted from being "Praetorian" to "constitutional" guards.
(The Praetorian guards were troops who protected the emperors of ancient Rome. They became bought mercenaries, placing loyalty to their imperial masters, who lavished money and prestige on them, above their allegiance to the state).
Snyder explained that most African armies as they evolved out of colonialism were "small Praetorian guards whose purpose was to defence the administration and the capital against internal rebellion."
But a professional army in a democracy, the soldier-diplomat explained, "protects the constitution and territory of the nation," not just an individual leader, his cronies, and their property.
Snyder said he would tell African nations that their democracies "don’t have to be a mirror image of our system." But "you have to have a set of human rights in existence to qualify for our training - otherwise the training is wasted."
The United States "is not training you as technicians of violence - we’re really not in that business," Snyder said he would stress to the Africans.
Rather, "we’re training you to be controllers of violence - the type of violence that can overthrow a duly elected government - as well as defence the nation’s border. That’s what a modern army is."
*Reprinted with the kind permission of the United States Information Service, P.O. Box 2155, Johannesburg, 2000
|
|
|