It seems that the world has learned all that there is to learn, and it is simply consolidating on previous knowledge. One lesson which most of us in the third world are forced to accept is that the European is always right. He is right politically; he is right economically; he is right culturally.

It is also vital for all inhabitants of the third world to also believe that the European has the final word in any political configuration they might wish to enact. Tandja Mamodu chose to think and act differently; he is likely in a prison, with an uncertain fate.

That Tandja Mamodu once participated in a coup was recently told to us via the radio. So if coming to power through a coup was acceptable to Tandja, it is also expected that he should find no fault with any that also used the same weapon to unseat him. In this I thus have no tear to spare for Tandja.

But I disagree with the traditional chorus; those who memorized the 'European political Qur'an', where it is written that constitutions should not be changed. And Tandja, the first Cain in political history, dared to do just that: he followed the rules and changed the Nigerien constitution; the opposition cried foul; Ecowas and the Nigerien army moved in; Tandja also moved into 'protective custody'.

Let's scan the African political horizon. Nigeria, the country started with parliamentary system of government, patterned after the Westminster model of Britain. A coup stifled it, and the American presidential system was imposed, with Alhaji Shehu Shagari as its first victim. A coup also came to truncate it. Then came Babangida's maneuverings; he stepped aside, and another constitution of the presidential type ushered in Obasanjo, who also wanted to tinker with it; he failed, but he enthroned Yar'Adua, who the constitution also wants to devour, via section 144. The lesson which Ecowas chooses to ignore is this: Nigeria changed it constitution at least three times.

In Algeria, I can faintly remember, (because I am neither a historian nor a political scientist) that there was an election which FIS was poised to win. It was scuttled, followed by bloodshed of greatest magnitude. Today, I think, Boutflika is running another term on an amended constitution. But the reason might be because Boutflika is light-skinned and Tandja is dark.

In Cameroon, Paul Biya had been around for say at least 25 years. His current term, unless I am wrong, is hinged on amended constitution. Biya must be dangida, (Son of the soil) in France, and possibly Tandja is not.

Is the Green Book a constitution? I don't know. But whatever the arrangement, it has enabled Gaddafi to be in power for forty years. Gaddafi is of course Arab, while Tandja is not.

In Egypt, Mubarak has also been around. Whatever constitution may be operational there, it has enabled Mubarak to be in power since 1976 I presume. That same constitution says that members of the Muslim Brotherhood cannot contest elections, their organization is banned.

Which other African country had a President who died in office, having spent forty years on the 'throne'? He must have had the foresight of designing a constitution that carried within it the proviso of life presidency. Tandja was foolish to have only acted with hindsight.

If truth be told, there is no single political system that is suitable to all the diverse people of the world. What is most worrying is the fact that a set of people, those who inherited the colonial mentality from their ancestors, insist that all others must do their bidding. If you don't, they might have prepared someone from your military to topple you; then they would come to insist on 'quick' return to 'democracy'.

In Madagascar, in Guinea, the military hold sway. In Ivory Coast, a civilian had been in power for up to, is it ten years, without an election? And the gods of wisdom had been alive and kicking during the interregnum.

Was it in Japan that a political party held power for 59 years? Was there no opposition? The same excuse might be given: the constitution must have provided for such long tenure pre-natal, while Tandja's was post-natal. What military coups in Africa do are two things: they afford Western Powers to change governments that they do not want. This is possible because of the second reason: coups expose the docility of the African population. The African, by accepting to live under the yoke of military government, shows that he can still be colonized and accept it. It might not come to direct white occupation in re-colonization, but the satisfaction is there that the possibility remains open.

Tandja was a gambler. He lost. He deserves no scorn in so far as successful gamblers like Biya and Boutiflika abound. The ones who deserve to be scorned are the 'parrots'; who are always extra ready to spread the message of the West to the hapless Third-Worlder. The Nigerien opposition may clap and beat their chest for seeing the back of Tandja. But today, next month, or even next year, they will be living under a dictatorship. And even if they ever come to power, let them know that they are in power subject to a license from their military, not the electorate; and their military are under the influence of their former colonizers. However, where one chooses to be a lap-dog to another, as in the case of Hamid Karzai in Afghanistan, self-esteem is a word not to be found in one's dictionary.

Musa writes from Ahmad Nuhu Road, Sharada, Kano.