By John Amoda
Nigeria and The Post Colonial Order

THE political history of British postcolonial countries began with the reform of the capitalist British     Empires. The strategic difference between these postcolonial countries is to be found in the nature of their independence politics and their independence politicians.

They all began their postcolonial existence within the context of transitions between orders. For India, the transition has been shortened – for Nigeria we are still in this transition. The transition consists in the attitude of Nigerian political class to the political and administrative institutions of the British colonial government and economy.

The Nigerian post colonial leadership have been content with adapting the British colonial institutions and economy for service of a post colonial Nigeria. Adaptation methods presuppose reform not development transformation.

It is this commitment to adaptation rather than transformation that has resulted in the maintenance of the roles and functions of institutions of colonial government and security in post colonial Nigeria. Concretely, this has meant that the post colonial army, police and civil service have continued to perform their institutional roles as defined and developed for the sustenance of the colony.

The post colonial government has the same internal security needs as the preceeding colonial government for the colonial structure of society in Nigeria remains the same in the post colonial period.

Since the colonial structure of society is assumed as the context of politics and governance, the colonial economic order is also assumed. In the colony the colonial government was the agent of the British government which was the agent of the British Imperial State.

In independence Nigeria the post colonial political class is structurally dependent on the Nigerianised institutions of colonial security and administration.

It did not take long for the ambitious among the ranks of the Post Colonial Armed and Security Services to come to the conclusion, namely, that if their loyalty to the political class is necessary to sustain the government of that class, then they could also rule in the place of “elected”’ politicians.

The history of government in Nigeria has occurred within a dilemma, a dilemma which remains a challenge to the Armed and Security Forces. Their dilemma consists in the fact that constitutionally their role is to secure the society against external threats and the government against internal insurgency.

The government however is structurally dependent on the Armed Forces and the elected government has had to live with this fact because they remain unable to secure their elected leadership in power. If the electoral parties are unable to secure their elected leaders in power or to restore them to office when military coups take place, why does the Military not continue in office?

Why do the Military share office-holding with civilians? The capacity of the Military to topple civilian elected government at will and to rule for long periods of time even with the support of the same civilian electoral leadership should determine tenure and stability of military governments.

The conditions that favour military rule also favour exclusivity of military rule. Sharing office-holding with civilians, no matter for what duration, is the conundrum Nigerian politics present to the critical publics in Nigeria. This is so because the history of postcolonial politics in Nigeria favours the exclusivity of military rule not an alternation between the military and Nigeria’s electoral political parties.