Thermidor of the praetorians

“Military Marxist Regimes in Africa”, published in 1986, contains articles from a special issue of The Journal of Communist Studies. The articles themselves seem to be somewhat older. They are all relatively short.

During the Cold War, a number of military regimes in Africa claimed to be “socialist” or even “Marxist”. These regimes were oriented towards the Soviet Union, North Korea and (to a lesser extent) China. The authors discuss the significance of this phenomenon. Case studies include Sudan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Congo-Brazzaville, Benin, Burkina Faso and Madagascar. Some of these “revolutionary” military juntas are almost notorious, such as Mengistu Haile Mariam's murderous Dergue in Ethiopia. Others are hardly even discussed in leftist circles, such as Frigate-Captain Didier Ratsiraka's Democratic Republic of Madagascar. For some reason, the book doesn't deal with Ghana's left-populist military regime under Jerry Rawlings, presumably because Rawlings never claimed to be an outright Marxist. Another disappointment was the article on Burkina Faso, which only mentions the initial phase of Thomas Sankara's Cuban-inspired “revolution”. It must have been written in 1984.

The Marxist military regimes give a Janus-faced impression. On the one hand, they represent a sharp (and sometimes necessary) break with the past. Thus, Mengistu's regime in Ethiopia, whatever else can be said about it, at least succeeded in abolishing the virtually feudal conditions prevalent on the Ethiopian countryside. Many of the military regimes initially enjoyed a large amount of popular support, especially from the younger age cohorts. Leftist groups and labor unions were particularly enthusiastic. Popular measures included imprisonment of corrupt old guard politicians, nationalizations of foreign holdings, and attempts to send the last European settlers packing.

On the other hand, however, all regimes mentioned in the book soon came into conflict with the labor unions (which defended their independence from the military-run state). Ironically, the supposedly “Marxist” officers also clashed with civilian Marxist activists. The orthodox pro-Soviet Communists wanted a Communist state of a more “classical” type, headed (of course) by themselves, not by the military. Other leftists supported the more unruly elements among the unionists or the youth. Thus, after overthrowing the ancien régime, the “Marxist” officer caste often had to attack competing revolutionary groups on the left!

The authors also reveal that many of these “socialist” regimes were heavily dependent on foreign Western investment, had large debts to Western banks, and in some cases even imposed IMF austerity. Their foreign policy was frequently opportunistic. After an initial sharp break with the Western alliance and turn towards Moscow (and Gaddafi's Libya), many “Marxist” praetorians switched to more neutral positions and reestablished good relations with the former colonial power. Two, Somalia and Sudan, actually went back to the Western bloc!

What does the curious phenomenon of “Marxist” military regimes in an underdeveloped part of the world really signify? The contributors point out that the African “nation-states” are really artificial creations by colonialism. They are also marred by uneven economic development. The only way to stop these “nations” from exploding from within is to suppress the tribal/ethnic and class conflicts by creating a virtual Leviathan at the center. The authors believe that the power of the state was extensive already during colonialism and the first (moderate) phase of post-independence. The “Marxist” military regimes simply take this excessive centralization one step further by nationalizing industry, collectivizing agriculture, and controlling every little corner of society through fake “mass organizations” that are really state agencies. Independent labor unions, workers' councils and even Marxist groups with agendas somewhat different from those of the praetorians must therefore be suppressed.

To me, this sounds pretty trivial, but I suppose it’s a grand revelation to people who believe that Marxism *really* is about the emancipation of the working class, rather than just one more instrument in the tool-box of an aspiring state bureaucracy (or military caste sitting on top of such). Personally, I'm not surprised at all. It's also interesting to note that some pro-Western African regimes looked strikingly similar to some of the “Marxist” ones (or was it vice versa?). Wasn't pro-Western Togo under Eyadéma a mirror image of pro-Soviet Benin under Kérékou? The main appeal of the “Marxist” version of statism was presumably that it held out the promise of full political and economic independence from the former colonial powers, something pro-Western etatism of course did not.

One of the contributors also argues that all revolutions go through a cycle of moderation-radicalism-moderation, and believe that the Marxist military regimes also follow this pattern. This seems to be largely correct, with the possible exception of Mengistu's Ethiopia, which remained “radical” throughout, presumably because of the civil war. But then, it could be argued that the Ethiopian Thermidor took place when Mengistu was overthrown. It was interesting to read a somewhat cynical view of revolution in a publication that doesn't sound particularly right-wing…

As already indicated, “Military Marxist Regimes in Africa” is a relatively short and introductory study, but if heavy scholarly tomes aren't your thing, perhaps this summary will suit you. Four stars.