DIDIER Ratsiraka of Madagascar is a typical caricature of an African leader: he refuses to accept change and seems to believe that without him at the helm Madagascar would sink without trace into the Indian Ocean.

There are other such stubborn leaders in Africa, among them Daniel arap Moi of Kenya, Yoweri Museveni of Uganda, Muammar Gaddafi of Libya, Eduardo dos Santos of Angola, Hosni Mubarak of Egypt, Omar Bongo of Gabon, Gnassingbe Eyadema of Togo, Charles Taylor of Liberia, and Robert Mugabe of Zimbabwe to name a few.

Ratsiraka's additional problem is that he came from the military, having been an admiral in his country's navy.

Before his current controversial term, which has resulted in the electoral stalemate with Marc Ravalomanana, he led the country for 17 years as a virtual dictator.

He is not a man amenable to the noble, fine, general guidelines of a democracy. Even after the highest court in the land declared, after a recount of the votes in last December's election that he had lost to the capital's mayor, Ratsiraka still refused to concede defeat.

Madagascar is now in danger of being split into two separate states as a result of the former military strongman's refusal to accept change and go quietly into retirement.

He and the other leaders cling to the outrageous notion that African democracy is not necessarily compatible with the Western variety.

They seem to suggest African democracy must include a strong dash of totalitarianism to function effectively.

Moi, Museveni, dos Santos, Mugabe (until the 2000 parliamentary election), Gaddafi and Mubarak have practically run dictatorships for years. They are the most vocal critics of democracy as propounded by the West.

If you point out to them that their one-man-rule systems are no different from the regimes run by such odious dictators as Idi Amin, Macias Nguema, Jean Bedel Bokassa, Kamuzu Banda and Mobutu Sese Seko, they will remind you of the regular elections they hold.

Take the latest Zimbabwean presidential election: Mugabe and his party prepared the way for a victory with a double-pronged strategy: reign of terror in the communal areas and another reign of terror in Parliament.

Legislation was rushed through which was deliberately designed to make life difficult for the opposition and for the independent Press.

There was no other purpose for all this, except to make it difficult for the opposition to win the election.

On the voting itself, the voters of Harare and Chitungwiza were denied the time they needed to cast their ballots. Again, this was a scheme designed solely to frustrate the opposition candidate's chances of winning.

In short, there was no way that the election could be endorsed by anyone as free and fair.

Its endorsement by the Non-Aligned Movement is not significant. That organisation has never enjoyed a reputation as a bastion of democracy.

Zimbabweans know that if the playing field had been completely level, with an independent Electoral Supervisory Commission in charge, Mugabe would not have won this election.

If there had been no intimidation and if the security chiefs had not publicly warned they would not accept the victory of a candidate other than Mugabe, that election would have gone Morgan Tsvangirai's way.

Zanu PF knew, even if their spin doctors tried to sound upbeat right up to the last minute, their long, chaotic and violent reign had come to an end. If an election result could be described as a shock, this was it.

The number of rulers who refuse to step down or who devise strategies to keep themselves in power through phony election victories, have helped in the serious political, economic and social underdevelopment of the continent.

Africa is the poorest continent primarily because the freedom in which spectacular economic development and unfettered political activity can thrive does not exist in many African countries.

The rulers, most of them old men of the ilk of Madagascar's Didier Ratsiraka and our own Mugabe, believe their destiny is to rule their countries until they drop dead.