| The main thrust of this dissertation has been to compare the theoretical presuppositions and expectations of modernization theory and a strand of neo-Marxist political economy, with regard to their relative predictions of internal and external military interventions in Africa. While both theories address the issue(s) of instability, I argue that the neo-Marxist political economy approach provides a more compelling explanation.;The neo-Marxist political economy approach, on the other hand, derives from a macro-sociological analysis, and hence rejects the key assumption made by modernization writers that the appropriate level of analysis is the individual or even national societies. Thus, it assumes that the historical insertion of Third World States into the global capitalist economy be analyzed to understand, in addition to internal variables, the causes of coups d'etat. The latter also stresses equally the importance of historical dimensions and the social relations that evolve in different contexts. Such is not the only distinguishing mark of the neo-Marxist approach, as it tends to stress equally the importance of the totality of structures. Thus, macro-structural analysis lends understanding to patterns and reactions of contending classes in their quest for hegemony.;Thus, the relative superiority of the neo-Marxist approach over the modernizing military view (MMV) is to be found in its complexity, generality, and its inclusion of the individualist perspective. What this suggests is that the individualist perspective is useful, not so much as a level of empirical analysis, but as a presupposition of social structure.;The principal difficulty with modernization theory lies in its individualist approach to coups. Consequently, it is limited for explanatory and predictive purposes. This is because, for a theorist to maintain the logical structure of the individualist view requires allowing for an unprecedented openness and unpredictability. |
