HOW COLONIAL RULE SHAPED AFRICA’S MODERN MILITARIES

Africa’s contemporary military institutions are deeply rooted in structures created during colonial rule. From the late nineteenth century onward, European powers built armed forces across the continent not to defend African societies, but to conquer territory, suppress resistance, and enforce imperial authority. These colonial armies became the templates from which post-independence militaries emerged, carrying forward doctrines, hierarchies, and internal divisions that still shape civil–military relations today.

Colonial forces relied heavily on locally recruited soldiers commanded by European officers. Known as askari in German and British territories and tirailleurs in French possessions, these troops formed the backbone of imperial control. Recruitment policies were rarely neutral. Colonial administrators often favored minority groups or communities labeled as “martial races,” believing they were more loyal or warlike. This strategy helped colonial rulers divide populations, but it also embedded ethnic imbalances that later reappeared within national armies.

African soldiers were indispensable to imperial warfare. During the First World War, more than 100,000 West and East Africans served in British campaigns, while French colonial troops fought extensively on European battlefields. In the Second World War, African participation expanded further, exposing soldiers to modern warfare, new political ideas, and global debates about rights and citizenship. Yet these contributions came at a high cost. African troops were often poorly equipped, segregated, and assigned the most dangerous missions. Discriminatory pay and treatment reinforced resentment, even as wartime service fostered political awareness.

This experience proved significant after independence. When African states gained sovereignty in the 1950s and 1960s, they largely inherited colonial armies intact. Personnel, command structures, and military doctrines were retained, while Africanization of officer corps proceeded unevenly. In many cases, European officers departed abruptly, leaving behind fragile command systems. Ethnic recruitment patterns persisted, as seen in Nigeria, where colonial-era preferences shaped the composition of the military and later fed political tension. In Francophone Africa, defense agreements with France preserved centralized military models and enabled continued external involvement.

One of the most lasting consequences of these origins was the military’s political role. Designed as instruments of control rather than national defense, many armies saw themselves as guardians of the state. From the early 1960s, coups became a recurring feature across the continent. Nigeria’s first military takeover in 1966 reflected ethnic imbalances within the officer corps, while Togo’s 1963 coup involved veterans demobilized from French service. Similar patterns appeared elsewhere, linking political intervention to colonial military traditions.

Scholars describe this phenomenon as praetorianism: armed forces accustomed to wielding power in the absence of strong civilian institutions. Colonial borders, weak legislatures, and extractive economies limited civilian oversight, creating space for military intervention. Ethnic favoritism in recruitment deepened grievances, as certain groups dominated command positions while others felt excluded.

These legacies remain visible today. Recent coups in Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger echo longstanding frustrations over governance, insecurity, and external influence, particularly in former French territories. Contemporary African militaries often retain rigid hierarchies and authoritarian cultures, even as professionalization and reform efforts advance unevenly across regions.

Understanding how colonial rule shaped Africa’s armed forces is essential to reforming civil–military relations. Addressing inherited ethnic imbalances, redefining the military’s role in politics, and reducing external dependency are central to building accountable security institutions. As African states continue to negotiate their post-colonial identities, the challenge lies in transforming armies once designed for domination into forces that serve democratic governance and public trust.