Account for the frequent military coups in Nigeria.
Military coups were frequent in Nigeria between 1966 and 1993 because of a combination of political, economic and institutional failures. The reasons are accounted for below:
Corruption and mismanagement: Widespread corruption, embezzlement of public funds and misuse of office by politicians gave the military a ready excuse to seize power in the name of national rescue.
Political instability and violence: Bitter inter-party rivalry, thuggery, rigged elections and regional conflicts created disorder that the military claimed only it could correct.
Weak democratic institutions: The institutions meant to check abuse of power, such as the legislature, judiciary and electoral bodies, were fragile and easily manipulated, leaving no strong civilian defence against military takeover.
Personal and group ambition: Ambitious officers seized power for personal gain, promotion and the privileges that came with office, sometimes cloaking selfish motives in patriotic language.
Ethnic and regional rivalry: Deep-seated ethnic suspicion and the struggle for dominance among the major groups spilled into the barracks and provided grounds for coups and counter-coups.
Economic hardship and inequality: Poverty, unemployment, inflation and glaring inequality bred discontent that the military exploited to justify intervention.
Success of earlier coups: Once the first coup succeeded, it set a precedent and emboldened other officers, making the takeover of government appear normal and achievable.
Indiscipline and factionalism in the army: Rivalry, grievances over promotion and lack of professionalism within the armed forces encouraged plotting against the government of the day.
Military coups were frequent in Nigeria between 1966 and 1993 because of a combination of political, economic and institutional failures. The reasons are accounted for below:
Corruption and mismanagement: Widespread corruption, embezzlement of public funds and misuse of office by politicians gave the military a ready excuse to seize power in the name of national rescue.
Political instability and violence: Bitter inter-party rivalry, thuggery, rigged elections and regional conflicts created disorder that the military claimed only it could correct.
Weak democratic institutions: The institutions meant to check abuse of power, such as the legislature, judiciary and electoral bodies, were fragile and easily manipulated, leaving no strong civilian defence against military takeover.
Personal and group ambition: Ambitious officers seized power for personal gain, promotion and the privileges that came with office, sometimes cloaking selfish motives in patriotic language.
Ethnic and regional rivalry: Deep-seated ethnic suspicion and the struggle for dominance among the major groups spilled into the barracks and provided grounds for coups and counter-coups.
Economic hardship and inequality: Poverty, unemployment, inflation and glaring inequality bred discontent that the military exploited to justify intervention.
Success of earlier coups: Once the first coup succeeded, it set a precedent and emboldened other officers, making the takeover of government appear normal and achievable.
Indiscipline and factionalism in the army: Rivalry, grievances over promotion and lack of professionalism within the armed forces encouraged plotting against the government of the day.