The latest military coup d’état happened in Niger Republic and Heads of State in the West African economic community decided they had had enough. They came up with tougher sanctions, threatening military invasion, even. Views have since been expressed in favour, others are against. The challenge though is that many dissenting views ignore realities surrounding leadership, principles that guide global relations, and the fact that the junta in Niger cannot conduct themselves as though they’re an island.

First, I applaud the solidarity and the resolve by the Economic Community of West African States leaders to not let the coup in Niger pass as usual. Why? With a political science background I have this distaste for any mentality that being in khaki uniform makes a group some sort of saviour for their nation. They never are, as political history shows they only use coups to fulfill their dreams of becoming Heads of State. As seen in most nations these boys in khaki only create a mess in the end. Their initial excuse of seizing people to save the nation precipitates continual political instability. If they don’t remain in power forever, transforming to become civilian leaders, they arrogate to themselves the role of guardians to everyone else, carving out “no-go-areas” and privileges for themselves even in a democratic dispensation that they should stay out of. We see this in places like Pakistan. The military stays out of politics in western nations, so I don’t see why anyone in uniform should think they’re a bullet that must compulsorily be in the gun in any nation where civilians should freely determine who leads them.

Someone told me about a person that became a Head of State. He said the guy was the dullest in his class in secondary school. But because the guy got to wear khaki, he eventually removed a civilian leader to become Head of State himself. From the first day, I told colleagues that this guy didn’t show the kind of bright mind that I saw in others which made them to not step crazily around, and that he would end in a way that was better imagined. He did. Uniform can’t be what is required to shoot to the presidential palace. The Niger coup therefore should be a no-no, and whoever comes to power there because he wears khaki must go in any way ECOWAS leaders deem fit.

I shall treat a few arguments made in the case of Niger in a rather peripheral manner. It’s argued, for instance, that if ECOWAS intervenes militarily it may be doing the dirty work for a former colonial master, France. I don’t subscribe to any former colonial power dominating an African nation. But I’ve seen some materials in social media purporting to be a set of agreements France has with its former colonies in West Africa. I don’t want to believe they’re true, because such agreements aren’t what I would want a civilian government in an independent African nation to abide by. Nonetheless, that decision is with the people. If they elect leaders who continue to be dictated to by a former colonial master, that’s their choice. If they don’t want such they can vote for a civilian whose election promise is that no colonial master will subjugate his people. Let’s not forget that it took such leaders in Africa for colonial masters such as France to decide to grant political independence in the first place.

By arguing that boys in khaki who grabbed power illegitimately should be allowed to maintain it so that France’s colonial-like policy wouldn’t be continued missed the point. The argument amounts to saying that only boys in khaki can free their people. It’s like saying the people of Niger don’t have a mind of their own, they don’t know what they want and can’t choose well for themselves. Where then is democracy? Take note that the same boys in khaki who rejected France had hardly arrived power when they replaced France with Russia and its mercenary army, Wagner. Where does this leave Niger?

There’s the argument as well that ECOWAS shouldn’t use force to remove the junta so that it doesn’t precipitate a crisis, reminding us of Libya as well, thus making it out that outsiders precipitated the crisis in Libya. I’ve never been of this view. A man in uniform, by the fact that he seized power in 1969, precipitated the crisis in Libya once it became clear he wanted to rule forever. Muammar Gaddafi’s measures to ensure he ruled forever sent signals that the day he was no long on seat there would be chaos in Libya. There was no clear line of succession, all opposition was crushed, and as any political science student should know these were signals that a state would fail. Fed up with the atrocities he committed, Libyans took up arms against Gaddafi and he began to snuff them out in a way the international community could no longer ignore. They imposed a no-fly zone, and the rest as we say is history.

Niger, where boys in khaki shoot their way to power, isn’t one the international community should ignore. And certainly ECOWAS hasn’t. ECOWAS has had the backing of western nations. The fact is that ECOWAS isn’t the only member of the international community that will bear the consequences of not putting a stop to military incursion into politics in the region. Democracy everywhere will be under siege. The point shouldn’t be missed that democratically-elected governments across the world prefer to do business with civilians like themselves. The Europeans made this clear from the 1990s when they supported return to civil rule across the West African region. They tied much of their trade, investment, grants and loans to transition programmes from military to civilian rule. That was the outset of the belief that an end had come to military coups in the region.

Now boys in khaki are back, unsettling the political process in the name of rescuing their nations. They need to rescue themselves first from the greed that makes them not want to submit themselves to civilian authorities. Note that most of the West African nations where boys in khaki have now taken over have cases of hard drugs passing through their borders to Europe. Investigative reports indict boys in khaki in these nations; they’re accused of using their positions to facilitate the movement of hard drugs from South America. They’ve also been named among smugglers of vital mineral resources out of their countries. So, when boys in khaki take over power in West Africa, there’s a need to search behind the needle and you see a Mount Everest of economic sabotage that they commit.

Moreover, with boys in khaki in power in West Africa more migrants will flee to Europe in search of opportunities. Such issues aren’t for the countries from where they flee alone. Did anyone notice that boys in khaki in West African countries where power was seized pledged support for their fellow adventurers in Niger? This is a real threat. Without stopping the boys in Niger, West Africa isn’t the only region in danger of having rogues in uniform constituting threats. Boys in khaki in Niger for a period ignored the international community on which this poor nation depends for its economic survival, turning Niger into a pariah. Now they dig in as their threat to try the ousted president for treason indicates. Meetings with ECOWAS delegations, which the junta rejected initially, continue though.

With sanctions imposed already, these boys might leave Niger in a worse economic state than they met it and this could destabilise the region. This situation cannot be left to fester. ECOWAS will regret it, and the rest of the international community, especially Europe, will have more problems on its hands too. As one European diplomat once said to me in the course of an interview, West Africa is Europe’s closest neighbour so the brunt of what happens there is first borne by Europe. If these boys in khaki in Niger continue to be unreasonable, the international community, not just ECOWAS, shouldn’t spare them. Leadership requires that tough decisions considered to be in the best interest of the majority are taken and the international community has often ensured this. It should in Niger too.