Content area
Full Text
This article examines three interrelated questions: What were the precipitants of military intervention in politics in Liberia? What were the dynamics of the phases of military rule? How did the Liberian military perform as governor? The findings indicate that military intervention was precipitated by an amalgam of political, economic, and social problems in Liberia. In terms of military rule, it evolved through three major stages: Oligarchic praetorianism, autocratic praetorianism, and authoritarian praetorianism. The performance of the military was dismal.
INTRODUCTION
Since the post-independence era in Africa, military intervention has become a mainstay of the political landscape. For example, of the 53 independent African States, about 40 of them have been affected by the "coup d'etat epidermic." As Martin (1997:82) correctly observes, "until its recent decline, praetorianism since independence has constituted, with few exceptions, the standard model of accession and exercise of power in subSaharan African Countries...."
One of the enduring debates about praetorianism in Africa has revolved around the performance of military regimes. During the heyday of military intervention in the 1960s and 1970s, the modernization theorists hailed "frequent coups as a sign of change and progress" (Huntington, 1962:40). Moreover, they argued that given its organizational and technical skills and discipline, the military was the most viable agent of modernization and political development in Africa.
On the other hand, the corporatist theorists posit that military regimes are "largely rudderless juntas primarily concerned with their own interests" (Decalo, 1998:20). That is, the coupmakers simply use the legitimate grievances of the civilian population as a veneer for pursuing their own agenda. This is because such a strategy would help engender the much needed civilian sympathy for the coup.
In the case of the Marxists, they contend that the "military is the repressive arm of the state" (Wolpin, 1992:11). However, there may be disagreements between the ruling class and the military. In turn, this may lead to a military coup, but the military rulers do not institute fundamental changes; instead, they become the new privileged class.
Interestingly, after more than two decades of military rule in Africa, the emerging consensus even among the hitherto divergent perspectives is that generally military regimes have failed as rulers. Ayittey (1992) provides a good summation of the new agreement on the...