Wage increases alone cannot fix military welfare

Waliu Ismaila is a historian of colonial Africa whose work interrogates the relationship between military service, welfare, and state power. His research focuses on Nigerian World War II veterans and the political struggles that shaped their postwar lives.

His forthcoming book, ‘The Paradox of Welfare: The Military, Postwar Life, and the End of Empire in Nigeria’, reframes veterans as a distinct social welfare group—one that both challenged and negotiated with the colonial state in the pursuit of pensions, employment, and recognition.

At a time when Nigeria is reconsidering military pay and welfare policy, Dr Ismaila’s work offers a critical historical lens on a persistent question: what does the state owe those who serve—and what happens when those obligations fall short?

Nigeria’s recent wage increase for members of the armed forces has been widely welcomed as a necessary intervention at a time of rising living costs and sustained security pressures. Yet the policy has also triggered deeper questions about whether salary adjustments alone can address the structural realities confronting service personnel and their families.

In this edition of Strategic Debrief, Dr Waliu Ismaila situates the current debate within a longer historical arc—one that stretches back to World War II, when Nigerian soldiers returning from overseas campaigns confronted similar questions about compensation, recognition, and the state’s obligations to those who serve.

His analysis suggests that while wage increases are symbolically and materially important, they represent only one component of a much broader welfare framework—one that, if neglected, can carry consequences not only for morale but also for national security itself. Majemite Jaboro brings the excerpt…

Nigeria recently approved a wage increase for members of the armed forces. From a historical perspective, how significant are such measures for service personnel morale?

Since the colonial period, particularly during World War II, governments have consistently attempted to project the military as a symbol of modernity, discipline, and national progress. This was especially important in contexts where the army had previously been viewed with suspicion, often associated with coercion and repression.

In that sense, wage increases serve both a practical and symbolic function. Practically, they provide some level of economic relief to soldiers operating under difficult conditions. Symbolically, they signal that the state recognises and values the sacrifices of its armed forces.

Such measures are therefore important for morale. They reinforce institutional legitimacy, improve the public image of the military, and act as a recruitment incentive. When prospective soldiers see that service is accompanied by tangible benefits, it strengthens the attractiveness of military careers.

However, history also teaches us that while wage increases can boost morale in the short term, they do not by themselves resolve deeper welfare concerns.

Your research examines Nigerian soldiers returning from World War II. Did veterans in that era raise similar concerns about compensation and welfare?

Yes, very clearly. During World War II, the colonial government made a number of promises to African soldiers—pensions, gratuities, and support for reintegration into civilian life. These promises were crucial in mobilising large numbers of recruits.

However, after the war, many veterans felt that those commitments were either inadequately fulfilled or poorly implemented. While some received lump-sum payments, these often fell short of expectations and did not provide long-term security.

As a result, veterans became politically active. They organised, petitioned, and directly challenged colonial authorities over what they described as neglect. Their demands were not simply about money; they were about recognition, dignity, and the right to a stable livelihood after service.

This historical experience highlights a recurring pattern: when states fail to meet the welfare expectations of soldiers, it generates dissatisfaction that can spill over into broader political and social tensions.

Some analysts argue that salary increases address only part of the welfare challenge facing service personnel. What does history tell us about the broader needs of soldiers and veterans?

History strongly supports that argument. Welfare for military personnel has always been multidimensional. Salary is only one component of a much larger ecosystem of support.

In the current Nigerian context, even with wage increases, many soldiers still face significant economic pressure due to inflation and the rising cost of living. The purchasing power of wages is a critical issue.

Beyond that, welfare must extend to the household level. Soldiers do not operate in isolation; they are part of families whose well-being is directly affected by the risks and demands of military service. This includes spouses, children, and, in some cases, dependents of fallen personnel.

If we look at international examples such as the United States’ GI Bill, we see a more systemic approach. That programme integrated education, housing, and healthcare into a comprehensive welfare framework. While not perfect, it demonstrates how states can move beyond piecemeal interventions to create long-term stability for service personnel.

Nigeria can draw important lessons from such models by designing policies that address the full spectrum of soldiers’ needs rather than focusing narrowly on wages.

In your work, you describe veterans as a “social welfare group”. How does that concept help us understand contemporary debates about military pay and welfare?

The concept is important because it shifts how we understand soldiers and veterans—not just as individuals who have served but also as a collective group with shared expectations and claims on the state.

Military service involves a unique form of sacrifice. Individuals place their lives at risk in defence of national sovereignty. That experience creates a sense of entitlement—not in a negative sense, but as a legitimate expectation that the state will provide support in return.

This is what defines veterans as a social welfare group. Their identity is tied to both service and expectation. They organise around issues of pensions, healthcare, employment, and recognition.

In contemporary Nigeria, we can see similar dynamics. Debates about military pay are not just about income; they are about the broader question of how the state values and supports those who serve.

What lessons should policymakers draw from the historical experience of veterans when designing welfare policies for today’s armed forces?

One of the most important lessons is the need for sustained engagement. Policymakers must move beyond top-down decision-making and actively listen to the experiences and needs of both officers and rank-and-file soldiers.

Another key lesson is the importance of credibility. Promises made to soldiers must be honoured. When there is a gap between commitment and delivery, it erodes trust.

History shows that neglecting military welfare can have serious consequences. In some cases, it can contribute to ethical compromises, including issues such as intelligence leaks or collaboration with non-state actors. These are not just welfare failures—they are security risks.

Therefore, military welfare policy should be understood as an integral part of national security strategy.

Beyond wages, what additional support systems are essential to sustaining morale and stability within the armed forces?

A comprehensive welfare system must include housing, healthcare, and structured reintegration programmes.

Housing is critical because it provides stability for soldiers and their families. Healthcare is equally important, given the physical and psychological demands of military service. Mental health support, in particular, is often overlooked.

Reintegration programmes are essential for soldiers transitioning back into civilian life. Without adequate support, veterans can struggle with unemployment and social dislocation.

All of these elements contribute to a broader ecosystem of welfare. When they are in place, they strengthen morale, improve retention, and enhance the overall effectiveness of the armed forces.