If Africa should be your topic, representing most of the Third World, then you should say, the period, following World War II, should be first interesting, before becoming difficult to understand.

In 1957, the independent parleys started in Ghana by individuals like Paa Grant, Dr. J. B. Dankwah, on one hand, but then the breakaway group, led by Dr. Koi Larbi, and Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, K.A. Gbedemah, on the other, yielded fruits, in the Gold Coast, soon to change names.

Ghana was to become the first African Country, to gain independence, following what is often referred to, as Hitler's war. Ethiopia and Liberia were already sovereign states, (and let's leave such details behind for a moment).

A whole lot of states would follow, both British Colonies, (Nigeria, Sierra Leone, but French ones, like Guinea, and Upper Volta as well) would attain Independence too.

If it was all a happy start, the honey-moon though, was destined to be short-lived. Within two decades, most of the young sovereign states had been overthrown by the military, and in the case of Ghana and Nigeria, there had been countercoups, or insurgencies, that had led to significant blood-shedding.

If I was a historian, I would push the history of Africa vis-a-vis Europe several hundred years back, where due to lack of natural resources, European Monarchies headed for Africa, using the Bible and the revolver hand-in-hand, and acquired what they called colonies, in the other, the parallel of which the Romans had undertaken, two thousand years previously. Gt. Britain, France, Portugal, and Spain were the biggest acquisitionists.

Internal debates within Europe itself had pricked consciences, such that, with the misery of World War II on top of it all, it looked just, that, even without much local agitation, colonialism shouldn't continue much longer.

It is not to be forgotten, that Africa had provided the Colonial Masters, cheap fighting African young men, who returned home, (if they did), to live on pittances. Don't let me mislead anybody, by creating the impression as though, it all ended without a fight.

The bitterest French confrontation was with Algeria , (Ahmed Ben Bellah's name was on every French school kid's lips). The Portuguese were guilty of bloodshed in Mozambique , the British in Kenya , and then again, in a mixed equation, as in the Union of South Africa too.

The former colonial Masters found some common sense in co-operating with military juntas, which they would initially condemn. So, decade after decade, the economies of almost all African states suffered deprivation, even if they were bolstered by the erstwhile Command Economies from the Soviet Union and her satellite states.

Within the last two decades however, it seems a wind of change is blowing throughout the Continent, the home of well over fifty "sovereign states", where Democracy and free market -oriented economies, it is hoped, should be levering the masses out of poverty, even if only sluggishly so. In less than a year, Africa has witnessed two "botched elections", in which there ought to have been a winner, clear-cut, but an incumbent prevents that from happening. A crisis emerges, and a "face-saving solution" is concocted, to bring peace, by "power-sharing."

So, the man who losses an election is "diplomatically bolstered" to stay in power, "sort of", (as the Americans would put it). Similarly the man whom the citizens have otherwise given a clear mandate, to lead the nation, (in a particular situation), is prevented diplomatically, in such a weird scenario, from assuming office. He is made to lose, and win, all in one.

Africa has seen it happen two times in less than one year; first in Kenya , but then, for the second time, in Zimbabwe too. In both instances, human lives have been lost. In situations, high-ranking diplomats, and heads of state, -in Kenya , the incumbent head of state of our Republic, and our illustrious son and former UN Secretary General, had to play shuttle-diplomacy.

In Zimbabwe , the situation was not any more understandable. South African Head of State, and a lot more of Diplomats, some very angry, but others, able to hide their anger, -all met to call for a "face-saving solution", that would prevent blood-letting. These scenarios take place, after the nations have spent years in preparing themselves to vote, and millions of the Tax-payers' money, and donor support for development have been poured out. Myanmar , (Formerly Burma) tops the world in that regard!!

Truly, those who have studied ancient history and especially European history will easily fish out confused situations, whereby little of democracy, but a lot of autocracy has led nations out of such quagmires in the past. Don't ask me for specific examples, or scenarios.

But, Adolf Hitler used the aged, weak and former General of the German Army, Emil von Hindenburg, to cheat, and finally dissolve the coalition, with which he came to power in Berlin in 1933.

The trickster's question then arises: "Is there a time in the development of any nation, when the rules or norms could be bent, and rendered acceptable, so as to favor one party, to the disadvantage of another, so as to prevent blood-shed?" Two examples are going down into history this year in Africa, just as in 1933, (willy-nilly), for which Germany and the World subsequently paid dearly.

Those who have lived in African countries the last forty years have been through a lot, and that is even when you happen to be a euphemist. Take Nigeria and Ghana forty years back, when your job was not secure, until you came home for lunch, at noon, and you could enjoy your meal, without the announcement on the national radio, sacking you forthwith. You could suffer worse than that.

It was all done "in national interest." What happened in Kenya in January must have all been in national interest too. Or?! What is slowly evolving in Zimbabwe is in national interest, except that the Nobel Laureate, Archbishop Desmond Tutu disagrees, and he may not be alone.

It becomes an awfully difficult question to ask, what is good for the people. Our President just announced a kind of endowment fund, to stretch over ten years, to teach "all the bolts and knots of democracy." The standing ovation was longer than usual, and more uproarious than usual, and rightly so. That was in Ghana to begin with. Nearby and to the North of our Republic however, the Military had ousted the democratically elected Head of State, only a couple of days before our President's announcement. His crimes?! Déjà vu! He must have been corrupt, etc, etc, etc.

The situation isn't resolved. How do we change all that? Do we need centuries? Are we less mature than say, Germans? Anybody knows?