Extracted PDF page text

2004FN11-03AE.pdf

Machine-extracted derivative; not a transcript or translation. Reading order, spacing and characters have not been editorially verified. PDF page numbers are file positions, not printed page labels. No OCR has been added.

Open unchanged original PDF · Download unchanged PDF

Extraction status: extracted-unverified.

The Role of Military in Transition to Democracy
By Fesseha Nair
“Active support or acquiescence of the military is the key to any viable and sustained political 
transition to democracy”
Monshipouri
We have been observing the role played by the military in Tunisia and Egypt siding with the popular 
uprisings against the dictators and dictatorship on one side, and we just follow up the role of the 
military and security forces against popular uprising in Yemen, Syria and many others in the Middle 
East countries ruled by dictators for many decades. The role of military and security forces is 
essential to any analysis from dictatorship to democracy. In spite of its relevance, there is no 
scholarly work that clarifies the relationship between the civil society and the military. The main 
concern at this time for the Eritrean Pro-democracy forces is to find ways and methods to build a 
relationship between the public and the military. ( See Professor Gene Sharps scholarly studies) 
Several authors on transition to democracy ( Bosnian – Herzogovina and others) pointed out that 
military and security forces are the greatest threats to democratization in the states ruled by 
dictators. In this article, I will try to discuss on the role of the military in political transition to 
democracy.
The role of military in democratization
Post –independence Eritrean political leaders’ strategy for state building was not associated with 
democratization but anti- democracy and authoritarian system of governing. Their first priority was 
not building constitutional government but building military and security forces to defend them 
from civilian uprisings or to control the citizens.
Today, the dictator in Eritrea has built an army and security forces under his control through the use 
of bribes, spoils of office, ethnic manipulation of appointments and promotions and security forces 
counterbalancing the regular forces. The dictator has established a paramilitary apparatus to 
control the citizens. Under what conditions can the pro-democracy forces gain these forces on 
their side is the main issue for discussion. 
In case of Eritrea, today the military is severely weakened by years of political crisis and wars 
without  known budget and no salaries. They are enforced and enslaved youth without professional 
training. A military in such situation favors the end to military rule. Such situation motivates them to 
work for successful transition to democracy, in spite of strong resistance from the security forces of 
the dictator. We have seen in Malawi where the army forces played a crucial role in the 1994 
transition as they were protecting the people from the security forces of dictator president Banda. 
1

We have seen recently how the military joined the popular uprisings in Tunisia and Egypt. A common 
denominator in all these case was the deteriorating conditions of life of the army under 
authoritarian rule. Eritrean army and people are today in deep crisis under the dictatorship of one 
man rule. We are all suffering ( military and the civilians) under the dictatorship. However, in some 
countries, the military leadership or the important factions of the military can oppose the political 
change and side on the incumbent regime. Repeated clashes have happened in Sub-Saharan African 
countries before , and is now happening in Libya between those who are for democracy and those 
supporting dictator Gaddafi. 
The problem of the military of not joining the pro-democracy movement can be explained in three 
levels according the studies made by Hutchful. Hutchful’s  first explanation was that when a national 
army is established as a private institution it is less professional and is difficult to distance it from 
the incumbent regime. His second explanation is the deep-rooted problems in the military 
institutions. The only grievances the military see is not the injustices but pay disputes and what they 
will get from the transition. The third factor, Hutchful suggests is the lack of attention to the military 
from pro-democracy forces.
Latest studies made by Professor Gene Sharp and many others show that gaining the army on the 
side of the democratic movements is one of the factors to successful transition to democracy. The  
Egyptian young leader of the popular uprising recommends that those who want succeed the 
struggle from dictatorship to democracy must have the courage to gain the opinion of the people 
and create a civilized and disciplined popular uprising and convincing the national army to support 
the democratic transition.
The Eritrean national forces for democratic change should not alienate the Eritrean army. Alienating 
the army is just strengthening the dictator and creating clashes between the pro-democracy forces 
and the army. Another important issue  in democratic transition is the question of persuading  those 
associated with dictator to join the transition to democracy by promising them that a democratic 
system in Eritrea will guarantee them freedom and prosperity in the future without no retributions.
The National Congress to behold should in its grand strategy focus on the role of the military and the 
people associated with the regime. When considering the role of the military in relation to 
democratization in Eritrea it is important to consider their situation under the dictatorship, similarly 
the situation of those who support the regime should be considered and be given guarantee that in a 
democratic Eritrea there will be no retributions but reconciliation and truth telling.
2