BY
OLUWAGBEMIGA, ELIJAH A.
ELIJAHOLUWAGBEMIGA@YAHOO.COM
ABSTRACT
As
it is well known by students of Marxism, that Marxist theory is majorly based
on social-economy and the struggle between the “haves” and the “have nots” or
the bourgeoisie and the proletariat as Marx’s literature popularly connotes. It
is observed that every society is characterized by two major classes which
makes struggle inevitable. This paper seeks to explain Marxist’s “diamat” in
the light of military revolution and a proletariat army seeking for an
egalitarian society. Marxism justifies revolution as a process and not an
event. Since the anger, hate and aggression which leads to a revolt or better
still a revolution builds with time. Therefore, it is safe to look at
revolution as a process and not just an overnight event. For instance, the
revolution in Egypt which arose to topple the Mubarak government in 2011 did
not just happen overnight but was built with time until a point at which it was
inevitable.
Keywords; Marxist theory, marxisim, revolution
INTRODUCTION
According
to Nwosu (1984), military could be used as an instrument to facilitate the
reality of a proletariat revolution. Although, the military intervention in
itself must be revolutionary in nature. Example of such military revolution was
the bloodless coup that ushered in Murtala Muhammed in 1975 as the Military
Head of State in Nigeria. He was on the side of the long-suffering masses
(proletariat) but it should be noted that the regime he overthrew was itself
military. Nwosu is of the view that military intervention in government could
either be in support of the bourgeoisie or the proletariat. When in support of
the former, it is characterized by exploitation and inhumane exercise such as
the regime of Abacha and when in support of the latter, it tends to instigate a
revolution among the exploited populace or even among a particular sect of
people who feel cheated and sectionized as in the case of the Nigerian civil
war.
Marx’s
radical ideas and the social changes he postulates are based on the events of
his time. Such events as the French Revolution. This has made social theorists
such as Ritzer (2000) and Vadja (1981) cited in Omoyibo (2012) believe that
Marxist theory should not be a dogma as most of his ideas do not fit into
contemporary social reality. This justifies the claim of Nwosu
(1984)
that the misconstrued and dogmatized nature towards Marxism by majority of
African social theorists is a major obstacle to social development in African
states.
THE
MARXIST EXPLANATION OF MILITARY’S INTERVENTION IN POLITICS
Military
intervention in politics is seen in the view of the Marxist as stemming from an
intra class struggle among the rival faction of the ruling class and the
complex involvement of foreign capitalists or international capital as explained
by Mbah (2002).
According
to Marxists, the army of the third world country or developing nations are not
indigenous armies. Marxists believe that these armies are products of colonial
inheritance for the sole purpose of exploitation and neo-colonization of the
third world states particularly Africans. It is observed that these armies were
created by the colonial masters in order to curtail nationalist movements and
to fight the nationalists themselves. Therefore, they served as agents of the
colonial administration. Mbah (2002) adds that it was this army that was
inherited at the time of independence and at the same time had to serve under
its new indigenous leaders. It is funny as the new leaders had to utilize the
armies they did not create. Funny as it were, the foreign capitalists or
international capital posed as agents of democracy but had the ulterior motive
of exploiting third world countries via the armies they manufactured for them. The
nationalists of the third world countries were short sighted to have noticed
this plot and did not see the likely hood of military intervention in politics.
So, when the first coups were launched, it took them by surprise simply because
of the misconstrued believe they had about the armies. They thought they had a
total control over them until they were proven otherwise.
THE
MILITARY AS AN INSTRUMENT OF EXPLOITATION
The
military served as the best instrument for colonial masters to exploit third
world states simply because they built them, they trained them, and they knew
how they think and could predict them. Hence, control was inevitable.
Therefore, when military intervened in the politics of third world states, it
was just as the colonial masters had silently predicted.
Marxists
argued that citizens of the inherited post-colonial state had no experience,
they had a weak economic base, therefore used the control of the state to
enhance their economic base which later resulted in an accumulation of wealth.
The state was used as an instrument to accumulate wealth. This gave the state a
very high prominence and therefore made its control a crucial factor in
national politics of the third world countries.
The
struggle for the control of the state led to a fractional conflict among the
inheritors of these states on ethnic, religious and along professional lines.
It is noticed that military officers constituted a faction of this emerging
class and were also interested in state affairs and control. In this struggle
by the fractions of the emerging class, Marxists argue that the faction that
control the coercive instruments of the state gained an immense advantage and
prominence over other fractions. It was also stressed by the Marxist that
counter-coups were manifestations of further conflict factionization among the
already factionized military of the emerging class Mbah (2002).
These
military government after they assumed power served as exploitative instruments
by the colonial masters. In short, they were back in control even though they
were not physically giving orders.
Marxist
theory further reasons that military regimes function to protect a fraction of
the ruling class or the interest of international capital, that is, the foreign
capitalists. This process perpetuates underdevelopment, de-politize the people
and undermine democratic practices and values.
Mbah
(2002) further adds that “the overthrow of democratic governments and values
may more or less become permanent like in the case of Philippines, Austria and
Estonia”
CONCLUSION
Marxists
believe that in a number of cases, military coups create conditions for
revolutions. Revolutionary coups bring about fundamental transformation of
society in terms of liberation of economy from external exploitative forces
which in turn leads to a new social order. Although, this happenings are very
rare but an example was the military regime of Murtala Mohammed in Nigeria
which was characterized by socialism and later ushered in a democratic
government of the second republic in 1979.Also, in 1975 Murtala Muhammad
announced Nigeria's support for the Soviet-backed Popular Movement for the
Liberation of Angola (Movimento Popular de Libertação de Angola--MPLA) as
opposed the support of Capitalist states like the U.S.A for UNITA. This single
act potrayed Murtala’s regime as a revolutionary one in that it was Socialist
in nature setting the part of Angola to independence which was achieved in
1975. It is also important to conclude with a recent social reality of the arms
deal which was meant to procure arms for Nigeria’s military to curtail
insurgency but rather, was shared among bourgeoisie at the expense of securing
lives and properties. The point whereby a proletariat army will emerge and
revolution will be inevitable will soon be reached if this present
administration continues in its mediocrity acts of only fighting past
oppositions and refunding loots at the expense of the country’s dilapidating
economy. A call for diversification seems to be the only way out of economic
rescue.
REFERENCES
Mbah,
C.C. (2002) Government and Politics in
Nigeria: the search for an orderly state. Onitsha: Joanee Educational
Publishers limited.
Nwosu,
E.J. (1984) Marxism as obstacle to socialist development in Nigeria. Post graduate open letter series.
Omoyibo,
K.U. (2012) Marxism and the Nigerian state. European
Scientific Journal.
No comments:
Post a Comment