By E. Monjok Agom
Nigeria’s 1999 Constitution (as altered) proclaims a democracy where civilian institutions reign supreme. Yet, the recent State of Emergency in Rivers State- a spectacle of armoured vehicles and soldiers patrolling volatile streets- exposes a haunting truth: Nigeria’s governance is not a democracy but a diarchy, a fractured system where civilian and military authorities vie for dominance.
Political theorist Max Weber once defined the state as an entity that “monopolises the legitimate use of violence.” In Nigeria, however, that monopoly is contested. As the late Chinua Achebe starkly observed, “When the lion and the lamb share power, the lamb is always on the menu.”
Constitutional Contradictions: The Legalisation of Diarchy
The Constitution’s Sections 217(2)(c) and 218(1) permit military intervention in civil crises, but Rivers State reveals how these provisions institutionalise diarchy. Here, the Governor’s constitutional mandate is overshadowed by federal troops answerable only to the Commander-in-Chief. This duality creates parallel power structures: one elected, the other militarised. Political philosopher Hannah Arendt’s warning rings prophetic: “The moment military authority rivals civilian rule, democracy becomes a performative illusion.”
Nigeria’s founders envisioned military deployment ( especially within its borders) as a rare exception, yet Rivers State exemplifies its normalisation. The Governor, stripped of operational control over security, becomes a figurehead- a symbol of diarchy’s hollowing effect on federalism.
Diarchy in Action: Rivers State and the Spectacle of Divided Power
- The Theatre of Legitimacy
In Rivers State, soldiers manning checkpoints and enforcing curfews project federal might, while elected officials scramble to assert relevance. This theatre exposes diarchy’s core flaw: authority without accountability Nobel laureate Wole Soyinka’s indictment resonates: “A democracy that salutes the ballot box by day and kneels to the barracks by night is a pantomime of governance.” - The Shadow of Military Legacy
Nigeria’s history of coups (1966–1999) casts a long shadow. Decades of military rule normalised the armed forces as arbiters of political order. Today, even in “peacetime,” their influence lingers. As historian Toyin Falola notes, “The ghost of Abacha still strolls the corridors of power.” Rivers State’s crisis revives this spectre, revealing a system still wired to equate stability with martial force. - Civic Distrust and the Death of Participation
When soldiers disperse protests or “secure” elections, citizens perceive a state under occupation. Voter apathy festers; dissent retreats into whispers. Philosopher John Stuart Mill’s axiom- “A government reliant on soldiers to govern its people is no government at all”- captures the existential threat diarchy poses to Nigeria’s democratic pretence.
The Anatomy of Diarchy: Why Nigeria’s Democracy Falters
Diarchy thrives in Nigeria because it serves entrenched interests:
- Federal Complicity: Presidents, empowered by Section 218(1), deploy troops to assert control over restive states, often under the guise of “national security.”
- Institutional Collusion: State Governors, lacking faith in police efficacy, tacitly accept military aid, perpetuating dependency.
- Constitutional Ambiguity: The Constitution’s vague thresholds for military intervention (e.g., “breakdown of public order”) invite abuse.
This system, as Lord Acton warned, “corrupts absolutely.” It enables politicians to outsource governance to the military while evading accountability for institutional decay.
Diarchy’s Global Echoes: Lessons from History
Nigeria is not alone in grappling with dual authority. Historical precedents offer cautionary tales:
- Pakistan (1947–present): A perpetual diarchy where civilian governments dance to the military’s tune. As journalist Ahmed Rashid writes, “In Pakistan, the army doesn’t just defend borders- it defines them.”
- Myanmar (1962–2021): The military’s formal “reserved powers” under the 2008 Constitution culminated in a 2021 coup. Activist Aung San Suu Kyi lamented, “Democracy cannot breathe where soldiers dictate its rhythm.”
These cases underscore diarchy’s inevitable trajectory: the erosion of civilian primacy.
Conclusion: Reclaiming Democracy from the Diarchic Abyss
Nigeria stands at a precipice. The Rivers State crisis is not an anomaly but a symptom of a systemic rot. To dismantle diarchy, Nigeria must confront uncomfortable truths:
- Constitutional Reckoning: Clarify thresholds for military deployment and empower legislatures to reject frivolous interventions.
- Judicial Courage: Courts must challenge militarisation that violates the spirit of Sections 217 and 218.
- Civic Mobilisation: Nigerians must demand accountability, rejecting the normalisation of martial power.
As Desmond Tutu implored, “If you are neutral in situations of injustice, you have chosen the side of the oppressor.” Nigeria’s democracy will remain a façade until its citizens and leaders muster the courage to choose civilian primacy over diarchic convenience.
In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” For Nigeria, that vigilance must begin by exorcising the ghost of diarchy- and believing, at last, in the promise of self-rule.
E. Monjok Agom
16th April, 2025
The views expressed by contributors are strictly personal and not of Law & Society Magazine.
