The recent pronouncements by Kenya’s Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) regarding the apolitical nature of the military and the necessity for political transitions to adhere strictly to constitutional mechanisms have ignited a firestorm of debate. Accusations of political meddling have been levelled, casting a shadow over the pronouncements of a figure entrusted with the nation’s security.
However, a dispassionate and thoroughly researched analysis, drawing parallels with established democratic norms and the fundamental tenets of civilian control over the military, reveals that the CDF’s statements are not an overreach but rather a robust affirmation of his constitutional duty and a vital safeguard for Kenya’s democratic fabric. To interpret his remarks as partisan interference is to fundamentally misunderstand the crucial role of a constitutionally grounded military in a thriving democracy.
At the heart of the controversy lies the CDF’s assertion that those advocating for the removal of President Ruto must pursue this objective through the channels explicitly laid out in the Constitution. This statement, far from being a political endorsement, is a bedrock principle of constitutionalism. In any democratic state governed by the rule of law, the constitution serves as the supreme legal document, outlining the framework for governance, the rights and responsibilities of citizens, and the processes for political transitions. To suggest that a head of state can be removed through extra-constitutional means is to invite chaos, instability, and a potential descent into anarchy – the very antithesis of the security and order the military is sworn to protect.
Consider the foundational principles of democratic governance that underpin nations across the globe. In the United States, the transition of power, however contentious the political climate, has consistently adhered to the electoral process and the legal frameworks for challenging results. The military’s role in this process is strictly circumscribed to maintaining national security and upholding the constitutional order, remaining resolutely outside the political fray. Similarly, in established European democracies like Germany and the United Kingdom, the armed forces are unequivocally subordinate to civilian authority, and their involvement in political matters is unthinkable. Their loyalty lies with the constitution and the elected government, regardless of political affiliation.
The CDF’s emphasis on constitutional means is not a novel or uniquely Kenyan stance; it echoes the fundamental understanding of the military’s role in any mature democracy. The armed forces are the ultimate guarantors of the state’s sovereignty and territorial integrity, and their allegiance lies with the foundational legal document that defines the state itself. Allowing the military to become entangled in partisan politics would not only undermine its professionalism and neutrality but also pose a grave threat to the very democratic institutions it is meant to protect. History is replete with examples of nations where the politicisation of the military has led to coups, civil strife, and the erosion of democratic principles. The CDF’s statement can be seen as a preemptive measure against such dangerous possibilities.
Critics argue that the CDF’s remarks stifle dissent and infringe upon the right to freedom of expression. However, this interpretation misconstrues the essence of his message. The right to express political dissatisfaction is a cornerstone of democracy, and citizens are free to voice their opinions, organise protests, and advocate for political change. However, this freedom is not absolute and must be exercised within the bounds of the law. The Constitution provides mechanisms for holding leaders accountable, including elections, impeachment processes, and legal challenges. The CDF’s statement simply underscores that any pursuit of political change must adhere to these established legal pathways. He is not silencing dissent but rather directing it towards constitutionally sanctioned avenues.
Furthermore, the context in which these statements were made is crucial. Periods of heightened political tension often see an increase in rhetoric that can potentially incite unrest and undermine the stability of the state. In such environments, it is the responsibility of key institutions, including the military, to reaffirm their commitment to the constitutional order and discourage any actions that could destabilise the nation. The CDF’s pronouncements can be viewed as a necessary reassurance to the citizenry and a clear message to any elements that might consider extra-constitutional means of achieving political objectives.
Consider the case of Ghana, a West African democracy that has experienced both periods of stability and political upheaval. In recent decades, the Ghanaian military has largely adhered to its constitutional role, even during significant political contestation. Military leaders have consistently emphasised their neutrality and commitment to upholding the electoral process and the authority of the civilian government. This adherence to constitutional principles has been a significant factor in Ghana’s democratic consolidation. The pronouncements of the Kenyan Chief of Defence Forces (CDF) align with this established democratic norm, reinforcing the idea that the military’s legitimacy and effectiveness are intrinsically linked to its non-partisan stance.
The argument that the CDF is meddling in politics often stems from a misunderstanding of the military’s inherent interest in the stability of the state. The military’s primary function is to protect the nation from both external and internal threats. Political instability, especially when it threatens to devolve into violence or chaos, directly impacts national security. Therefore, the CDF’s emphasis on constitutional processes is not a partisan act but a proactive measure to safeguard the very foundation upon which national security rests. A military that stands aloof from the constitutional framework risks undermining its own legitimacy and effectiveness in fulfilling its core mandate.
Drawing parallels with South Africa’s transition to democracy, the military’s role during that period was crucial. While the political landscape was deeply fractured, the South African National Defence Force (SANDF) largely remained committed to the constitutional negotiations and the eventual establishment of a democratic order. Military leaders understood that their role was to facilitate a peaceful transition, not to interfere in the political process. The pronouncements of the Kenyan CDF echo this understanding, emphasising the military’s role as a guardian of the constitutional framework that enables peaceful political transitions.
Critics might point to instances where military leaders in other nations have used the guise of upholding the constitution to justify interventions in political affairs. However, the key differentiator lies in the specific context and nature of the pronouncements. The Kenyan CDF’s statements do not advocate for any military involvement in the political process beyond ensuring that all actions remain within constitutional boundaries. He is not dictating political outcomes but rather emphasising the framework within which those outcomes must be determined.
Consider the example of Nigeria, a nation that has experienced periods of military rule. The transition back to democracy in Nigeria involved a conscious effort to professionalise the military and entrench the principle of civilian control. In more recent times, Nigerian military leaders have largely respected the outcome of elections and the authority of the civilian government. The emphasis on constitutionalism by the Kenyan CDF aligns with this broader trend in African democracies towards establishing a clear separation between the military and partisan politics.
The assertion that the CDF’s remarks stifle the voices of those calling for political change overlooks the fundamental principle of democratic accountability. In a democracy, leaders are held accountable through periodic elections and the legal mechanisms enshrined in the constitution. While citizens have the right to express their dissatisfaction, the ultimate means of effecting political change lies within these established frameworks. The CDF’s statement reinforces this principle, reminding all stakeholders that the constitution provides the legitimate pathways for political transitions.
Furthermore, the CDF’s position can be understood in the context of maintaining the morale and cohesion of the armed forces. A military that is perceived to be partisan or involved in political disputes risks internal divisions and a loss of public trust. By clearly stating the military’s commitment to the constitution and its apolitical stance, the CDF is reinforcing the professional ethos of the Kenya Defence Forces and ensuring its unity of purpose in serving the nation.
Consider the case of India, the world’s largest democracy. The Indian armed forces have a long-standing tradition of remaining apolitical and upholding the constitution. Even during periods of political instability or national crisis, the military has consistently deferred to civilian authority and adhered to its constitutional mandate. This unwavering commitment to non-partisanship has been a cornerstone of India’s democratic resilience. The Kenyan CDF’s pronouncements align with this well-established democratic norm, emphasising the importance of a politically neutral military in safeguarding democratic institutions.
In conclusion, the accusations of political meddling levelled against the Kenyan Chief of Defence Forces are unfounded when his statements are viewed through the lens of constitutionalism and the fundamental principles of civilian control over the military. His pronouncements are not an endorsement of any political figure or party but rather a robust affirmation of his duty to uphold the supreme law of the land. In a democratic society, the constitution provides the framework for all political processes, including transitions of power. The CDF’s emphasis on adhering to these constitutional mechanisms is not an act of political interference but a vital safeguard against instability and a necessary reinforcement of the rule of law.
By drawing parallels with established democracies worldwide, it becomes clear that a military committed to its constitutional role is not a threat to democracy but rather one of its most crucial pillars. The CDF’s unwavering stance should be recognised not as political overreach but as a testament to his commitment to the enduring principles that underpin a stable and democratic Kenya. His words serve as a powerful reminder that in a nation governed by law, the constitution reigns supreme, and the military, as its ultimate guardian, must remain its steadfast and apolitical sentinel.
Col (Rtd) Imano Karu Guleid is currently serving at the National Disaster Operations Centre
