Back to Index

Of the army and popular protests
Marko Phiri
June 14, 2005

International media reports last month carried interesting developments in central Asia. This is predominantly an area of breakaway Soviet republics, and it not too much of a surprise to find not emerging democracies, but regimes which give a semblance of multiparty politics but are still avowed communists at heart.

Central Asia is presently going through what would be envied by citizens of those African countries where ruling parties have rode roughshod on the ideals of popular democracy which among other things demand respect for the popular vote and accountable leadership. In May, riots emerged in Uzbekistan a former province of the massive and fallen USSR, with government forces shooting down more than 50 pro-democracy protesters. In March this year, another former Soviet satellite, Kyrgyzstan, was hit by popular street protests following what was said to be a rigged election. The riots forced the fraudulently elected president flee to the Russian capital Moscow. Political watchers were reportedly taken aback by the speed the elected president’s government crumbled. Askar Akayev, the man attempted to steal the Kyrgyzstan election, had made sure that he had on his side the security forces, but international media reports say as the uprisings intensified, the soldiers "simply changed sides."

Now one would ask the relevance of these developments a whole continent away from us. Well, it could reside on the attitudes seen across the continent by the powers that be. African politics has that odious history of governments which have stayed in power based on loyalties derived from the armed forces, but then it is interesting when these same institutions, from which despotic regimes derive their stay in power, decide to shift and literally join forces with the people. These developments serve as a reminder at least to watchers of international politics as not only lessons for those regimes who still rest easy knowing the armed forces are on their side, but more importantly for the repressed masses themselves.

Also in Central Asia for example, the so-called Orange Revolution in the Ukraine, which saw pro-democracy mass protests bring regime change reportedly inspired regional pro-democracy matches. But it has been argued that African countries have their own histories, which would not make the wholesale exporting of events as far as Central Asia feasible. Still whatever historical contexts which may exist to literally stymie popular protest have been shown in central Asia to be overtaken by what would appear to be acute troubled consciences of the uniformed forces as events in Asia show.

What many politicians seem to forget is that soldiers are also people, and they can only take orders to an extent. A white guy asked two cops the other day something, which, it has been seen here, ordinary Jacks would not dare ask a law enforcement officer. He asked them if they would destroy the vending stall of their own sister, or leave their own children without a roof simply because somebody else told them to. "I can’t answer that question," came the reply from one of the officers. Lest we be accused of attempting to incite a "mutiny on the bounty" by the usual suspects, what is being argued here, how far can anybody take instructions which are wholly unjust?

A writer with religious leanings queried recently the logic of having something like army chaplaincies. Is it in the place of the padre to tell the soldiers to disobey apparently flawed commands? That is a relevant question going by events seen across the African continent since independence came to these shores. Catholic social teaching also talks about epikeia, where there is an allowance to ignore rules based on them being inherently flawed. Even standing orders of the highest office may in that regard is done away with if this, not relay in the fashion of utilitarianism, is being done for the greater good. That is what has happened in central Asia.

But then African politics from the days of independence struggles has been one where soldiers have played a huge role in the power politics, virtually deciding who stays in power. And this has been unfortunate where even ostensibly democratically elected regimes have their stay in power cushioned by the uniformed forces even though the people themselves think they deserve another administration. As long as real power resides with the soldiers and the police, what hope - and claim - then does African democracy have in the order of 21st century popular politics?

While military juntas do not really wield power and sit at official residencies as heads of state, they still are the virtual kingmakers seeing they can still decide who is fit and not fit to lead the nation. Remember the threat sometime ago when the opposition here seemed poised to match to state house through a popular vote when the armed forces issued on national television a press statement saying something about the forces not saluting a leader without liberation war credentials? That is how much power they command. And what this meant was that though the electorate decides to have a party that has no claim to liberation war politics, the army would still nullify their vote. So much for having brought independence and democracy here.

Please credit www.kubatana.net if you make use of material from this website. This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License unless stated otherwise.

TOP