Does the military follow(obey) civilian government for the Democracy to function properly? What is the purposeful action for altering the order of Military imposing Government even if “democratic” violates the principle of Democracy? People should have the chance to have the chance to argue, experiment and agree on political matters without the threat (fear) of military interference. Why does civil society thrive so fast in the face of terrorism? In essence it is an indictment against military intervention in politics without a clear political consensus.

Gen Chiwenga’s phrase, as implied by @DanBron, emerges from regional politics with a twist. On 17th November, 1978, a documentary on international law created by the ICTY (International Civil Liberties Agency) and written by the Justice Minister for Eritrea, stated that the ICTY did not want the Eritrean army to be liberated from Ethiopia. Why does Egypt use the military over its country and its armed forces in Eritrea (the US in 1966)? Chiwenga and Chiwenga transferred it from the denunciation of proto-colonial expansion to the censure of military intrusion on civil society: from the context of national sovereignty to national politics, domestic affairs.

I suppose that the phrase, all its variations, would make implicit sense to people who have struggled with military elements meddling in civilian affairs. Was Chiwenga’s recent use of it also hints at the influence of historical documents in the current African political

discourse (c.d.)?