Zimbabwe’s future cannot be built on tanks: The danger of another military intervention

Today I’m letting go of all literary and linguistic gymnastics to demonstrate in the most basic English that the frequent calls we see in Zimbabwean social media spaces for another military intervention to fix our politics, and subsequently our economy and country, are misguided, objectionable and dangerous.

In November 2017, Zimbabweans poured into the streets in scenes few thought they would ever witness. People danced, sang, waved flags and embraced strangers. Military vehicles rolled through Harare as crowds celebrated what many believed was the dawn of a new era. After 37 years in power, Robert Mugabe was on his way out, and hope was in the air.

For many citizens, the military intervention felt like a rescue mission. The economy was struggling. Political tensions were rising. The ruling party was consumed by succession battles. Ordinary people were desperate for change.

Yet nearly a decade later, Zimbabweans still find themselves debating an uncomfortable question: should soldiers ever decide who governs a country?

The answer, despite the frustrations many people feel, is no.

Not because politicians are always right. Not because governments never fail. But because military rule creates problems that are often bigger than the problems it claims to solve.

Why Armies Exist In The First Place

Understanding this issue begins with a simple question.

Why does a country have an army?

The answer is straightforward. An army exists to defend the nation from external threats and to protect the constitutional order. Soldiers are trained to fight enemies, secure borders and protect national sovereignty.

They are not trained to govern civilians.
Imagine a school where security guards suddenly decide they will choose the headmaster. The guards may be brave and disciplined. They may even have good intentions. But choosing school leadership is not their job.

Or imagine a football match where the referee suddenly joins one team and starts scoring goals. The moment that happens, the game loses its fairness because the person meant to enforce the rules is now participating in the contest.

The same principle applies to a country. Institutions have different responsibilities. When those responsibilities become blurred, confusion and instability follow.

The Dangerous Lesson Of 2017

Many Zimbabweans welcomed the events of November 2017 because they were exhausted by years of economic hardship and political uncertainty. That reaction was understandable.

However, the deeper issue was never whether Robert Mugabe was popular or unpopular. The real issue was whether a military institution should determine political outcomes.

Once soldiers successfully intervene in politics, a precedent is established. The message becomes clear: when political disputes become difficult, the army can step in and settle them. That may sound harmless when people support the outcome. But what happens when the next intervention produces an outcome they dislike?

Rules that are broken for one purpose can be broken again for another.

That is why many democracies around the world treat military intervention with extreme caution.

Why Frustrated Citizens Become Tempted

Zimbabweans have many legitimate grievances. Corruption remains a major concern. Economic challenges persist. Political elites often appear disconnected from the daily struggles of ordinary citizens. Factional battles within powerful circles frequently dominate national attention.
Under such conditions, some citizens begin searching for shortcuts.

They conclude that politicians have failed and that soldiers might do better.

The temptation is understandable. But history shows that military intervention rarely delivers the miracle people expect. A soldier can remove a government. A soldier cannot magically create jobs. A soldier cannot automatically stabilise a currency. A soldier cannot instantly eliminate corruption.

The difficult work of governance remains difficult regardless of who occupies State House.

Africa’s Painful Lessons

The African continent provides numerous examples.

In Sudan, military involvement in politics contributed to years of instability. Power struggles between military factions eventually descended into devastating conflict that displaced millions of people and destroyed countless lives.

In Mali, repeated coups were presented as solutions to national problems. Yet insecurity, economic difficulties and governance challenges continued. Changing rulers did not automatically solve structural problems.

Burkina Faso experienced similar enthusiasm when soldiers seized power. Many citizens initially welcomed promises of renewal and stronger leadership. Yet insecurity and economic hardship did not disappear overnight simply because military officers occupied government offices.

Nigeria also offers important lessons. Decades of military rule left lasting scars on democratic institutions. While some military leaders promised discipline and order, repeated interventions weakened civilian politics and delayed democratic development.

The pattern is remarkably consistent. Military rulers often arrive promising salvation. They frequently leave behind weakened institutions and unresolved problems.

The Global Evidence Is Even Clearer

The same story can be found far beyond Africa.

In Myanmar, the military seized power claiming it was acting in the national interest. The result was widespread instability, violence, economic disruption and immense human suffering.

Pakistan has experienced repeated cycles of military intervention throughout its history. Each intervention was justified as necessary for national stability. Yet the country repeatedly found itself trapped in recurring political crises.

Across parts of Latin America during the twentieth century, military governments often promised order and national renewal. Many instead delivered repression, weakened democratic institutions and long periods of political uncertainty.

The lesson is universal.

Military intervention may appear to offer a quick solution, but it often creates long-term complications that are difficult to reverse.

What The Experts Have Said

The late United Nations Secretary-General Kofi Annan captured the principle clearly when he observed: “There is no substitute for democratic government.”

His point was simple. Sustainable stability comes from institutions that derive their authority from the people, not from force.

Political scientist Samuel P. Huntington, one of the world’s leading scholars of civil-military relations, argued that the healthiest societies are those in which the military remains professional and politically neutral.

In other words, armies perform best when they focus on military responsibilities rather than political contests.

These observations are not abstract theories. They reflect lessons learned through generations of painful experience across many countries.

Why Institutions Matter More Than Individuals

One of the biggest mistakes societies make is believing that national success depends on a single individual. In reality, strong nations are built upon strong institutions.

Presidents come and go.

Political parties rise and fall.

Generals retire.

But institutions endure.

A country with strong courts, credible elections, accountable leadership and respect for constitutional rules can survive bad leaders and political disagreements. A country that depends on military intervention whenever politics becomes difficult eventually finds itself trapped in permanent instability.

Every successful coup makes the next coup easier. Every intervention teaches future actors that power can be obtained outside constitutional processes. That is a dangerous lesson for any nation.

Zimbabwe’s Future Cannot Be Built On Tanks

Zimbabwe undoubtedly faces serious challenges. Citizens have every right to demand accountability, transparency, economic reform and better governance.

But those goals cannot be sustainably achieved through military intervention.

The answer lies in stronger institutions, stronger civic participation, stronger constitutionalism and stronger democratic accountability.

When citizens become frustrated, the temptation to look for a strongman or a military saviour can be powerful. But history warns us against that temptation.

The soldier’s duty is to defend the nation.

The citizen’s duty is to choose leaders.

The politician’s duty is to govern.

When each institution performs its proper role, society functions. When the soldier becomes the referee, democracy loses.

Zimbabwe’s future will not be secured by tanks in the streets or by soldiers deciding political contests. It will be secured by citizens defending constitutional government, demanding accountability from leaders and strengthening the institutions that outlive any individual.

That path may be slower, but history shows it is the safer path.