← RAMBLE in the JUNGLE: Debating Africa and the World

RAMBLE in the JUNGLE · Textbook · Unit 2: Development, Democracy and Self-Rule in Africa

Issue 2.4

Do Post-Independence African States Need Armies?

YESEditorial counterpoint, A State Must Be Able to Protect Its People (written for this book)
NOWanaku Verdzekov, African Armies: Killing Your Own People (2011) and Words for Peace: No Need for Armies (2010)

Learning outcomes

After reading this issue, you should be able to:

Summarize the author's argument that African states do not need armies.
Explain the idea of civilian control of the military.
Evaluate examples such as Costa Rica and UN peacekeeping.
Analyse how a poem and an essay make the same argument in different ways.
Write a structured debate speech on national security.

Introduction

An army is a state's organized, trained and armed force for defence. In theory, it protects a country from outside attack. In practice, armies around the world have also been used against their own citizens, in coups, civil wars and repression of protests.

Since the 1950s, African countries have experienced more than 200 attempted military coups, around half of them successful. Many post-independence governments were overthrown by their own soldiers, and some countries lived under military rule for decades. Since 2020, a new wave of coups has taken place in West and Central Africa. At the same time, African armies have fought insurgent groups and have supplied large numbers of troops to peacekeeping missions of the United Nations and the African Union.

A few countries in the world have no army at all. The best known is Costa Rica, which abolished its army in 1948 and spends the money on education and health. Others, such as Iceland and several small island states, rely on police forces or defence agreements with larger countries.

The author of the NO readings, Wanaku Verdzekov, wrote Text A in April 2011, a year of upheaval in North Africa and conflict in parts of West Africa. Text B is an earlier set of limericks (five-line comic poems) on the same theme.

As you read, ask: What is an army for? Who does it really protect?

YES

A State Must Be Able to Protect Its People

Editorial counterpoint Written for this book, not by Wanaku Verdzekov.

This essay was written for this textbook to present the opposing side fairly. It is not by Wanaku Verdzekov.

Wanaku Verdzekov asks the question that every citizen should ask about their army: who is it for? Too often in Africa's history, the answer has been the ruler rather than the people. Soldiers have fired on protesters, overthrown elected governments and looted the villages they were sent to protect. The author is right to be angry. But abolishing armies would not end these dangers. It would create new ones.

The threats are real

Several African states face armed groups that do not respect borders or human life. In the Sahel, in the Lake Chad region and in parts of East and Central Africa, militant groups have attacked villages, schools and markets, kidnapped students and killed thousands of civilians. Criminal networks traffic weapons, drugs and people. A state with no organized, trained force would leave its citizens to face these groups alone, or depend on foreign troops, which the author would surely dislike even more.

Armies do more than fight

Soldiers are often the first to arrive after floods, droughts and epidemics, because they have the trucks, helicopters, engineers and discipline that emergencies need. African armies also contribute many of the troops in United Nations and African Union peacekeeping missions, helping to protect civilians in other countries. The author mentions peacekeeping only as a sign of failure. For the civilians protected in those missions, it can be the difference between life and death.

The Costa Rica example is special

Costa Rica abolished its army in 1948 and has remained peaceful, and its example is often cited. But Costa Rica still has a police force with some security units, it sits in a region where it has not faced a major armed insurgency, and it has relied on regional agreements for its defence. Very few countries have been able to follow its path. An African country bordered by active conflicts faces very different risks.

Fix the army, don't abolish it

The problem the author describes is not that armies exist, but that they have too often been controlled by rulers instead of by law. The solution is civilian control: armies that answer to elected parliaments, that are paid fairly and on time, that are trained in human rights, and whose soldiers can be put on trial for crimes. Ghana and Botswana, for example, have long records of armies staying out of politics. Reform is harder than abolition, but more realistic.

Who fills the gap?

If a state disbands its army, the guns do not disappear. Former soldiers may join militias or criminal gangs. Neighbouring states may be tempted to take advantage. Private security companies may sell protection to those who can pay. A weak state is not a peaceful state; it is an empty space that others will fill.

Conclusion

The author is right that an army turned against its own people is a betrayal of the nation. But the answer to a betrayed trust is to rebuild that trust, with laws, courts and democratic control, not to leave citizens defenceless. Africa's people deserve armies that protect them, not armies that frighten them, and no army at all may leave them with something worse.

— Editorial counterpoint

African Armies: Killing Your Own People (2011) and Words for Peace: No Need for Armies (2010)

By Wanaku Verdzekov

Text A: African Armies: Killing Your Own People

Question: Do post-independence African nations need armies?

It seems like a topic for a citizens' debate. And here is the side I fall on: no need for armies.

What? you might say.

Repeat: no need for armies.

Why?

Question: who are you going to fight or kill? Other Africans? Your own citizens? Who?

Well, that has been the history of the past half century: armies to fight, kill, maim, rape, destroy and blow up Africans, your own people, your brothers and sisters. As long as there are armies, there will be an excuse to put the training and hardware to use, even against your own people.

Yes, we need an army to fight… who again? The US, UK, France, Belgium, Spain, Portugal, Italy, China, Australia, Brazil…? Yeah? Really?

If you really think about it, the most likely reason an African nation's army will go into active duty is, first of all, against its own people. A remote second possibility is being called up by the on-and-off African Union to do some peacekeeping in another African nation whose army has, again, turned on its own people.

Now if you look at the issue from every angle, you might conclude (like me) that starting an arms race on the African continent (if it has not already started) is a silly, dumb, stupid and nonsensical idea, for this simple reason: who are you going to fight or kill?

Answer: your own people. AFRICANS.

If at any point in the history of a so-called nation an armed section of the community begins to butcher the rest of the people, then the whole concept of "nationhood" is in the balance. If you need an army to make people belong to a so-called "nation", then there is something viscerally wrong with the foundation of that nation. And that something needs re-examining going forward. Under normal circumstances (some may differ on what is "normal"), there is no need for an army, especially when a lot of people cannot even afford three square meals a day.

By the way, if you are already in one of these African armies, please think before you pull the trigger. You might be committing fratricide (you know what that means?).

Blessings
~wv

Text B: Words for Peace: No Need for Armies

In Africa's lands wide and grand,
They build armies to take a stand,
But who do they fight?
Their own, day and night:
It's time that we all understand.

These soldiers, they march with pride,
But often, they're on the wrong side.
Not foes from afar,
But neighbours they scar,
With nowhere for citizens to hide.

Why spend on these guns and these tanks,
When hunger lines stretch with no thanks?
Let's feed every mouth,
And turn lives around,
Put peace and not war in our ranks.

So, think hard before you enlist,
When violence is top of the list.
Your target's not foes,
But those that you know:
It's a truth we can no longer dismiss.

— Wanaku Verdzekov

Text A was written in April 2011; the poem in Text B is dated October 2010. Both lightly edited for this book.

Vocabulary

Word or phrase	Meaning in the readings
post-independence	after a country becomes independent
maim	to injure seriously
hardware	military equipment
peacekeeping	keeping peace with international troops
arms race	competition between states to build up weapons
nationhood	being a nation with a shared identity
fratricide	killing one's brother, or one's own people
enlist	to join the armed forces
coup	a sudden, illegal seizure of power, often by soldiers
insurgency	an armed rebellion against a government
civilian control	armed forces answering to elected civilian leaders
militia	an armed group that is not part of a regular army

Comprehension questions

Literal (find it in the text)

What question opens Text A?
Which countries does the author list as unlikely enemies?
What does the poem say money should be spent on instead of guns and tanks?
In what year did Costa Rica abolish its army?
What solution does the counterpoint propose instead of abolition?

Inferential (read between the lines)

Why does the author say that needing an army to hold a nation together shows something is wrong with its foundation?
Why does the author mention people who cannot afford three meals a day?
Why does the counterpoint say the Costa Rica example is "special"?
What does the counterpoint mean by "a weak state is not a peaceful state"?

Critical (evaluate and respond)

Which reading better answers the question "Who is the army for?" Explain using evidence.
Compare the essay and the poem. Which is more persuasive, and why?
Research one country that has reformed its military after a period of abuse. What changed?

Is there common ground?

Both writers agree that too many African armies have been turned against their own people, and that this is a deep betrayal. Both put citizens' lives and needs (food, safety) at the centre. The counterpoint grants the author's anger; the author would presumably welcome an army that truly answered to the people.

They disagree about the remedy. The author sees armies as the problem: as long as they exist, they will be used against citizens. The counterpoint sees unaccountable armies as the problem, and argues for reform and civilian control.

Possible common ground: smaller, accountable forces focused on disaster response, border security and peacekeeping; strict civilian control; and more spending on the needs the author names, such as food and education.

Debate and writing prompt

Debate motion: This house believes that post-independence African states do not need armies.

Divide the class into proposition and opposition. Each side must use at least two pieces of evidence from its reading and answer the other side's strongest point.
After the debate, hold a vote, then discuss which arguments changed minds.

Writing task: (400–600 words) Write a speech for or against the debate motion, as if delivering it to your national parliament. Use at least two pieces of evidence from the readings and respond to the strongest argument on the other side.