Lagos — Getting rid of the incentives for military take-overs on our continent is, if you ask me, something both the ECOWAS regional grouping and the pan-African organization, called the African Union, A.U., have yet to take seriously.

In many cases, the world umbrella body, the United Nations, U.N., sits idly bye, when coups happen, only to pass worthless resolutions of condemnation. Former colonial powers, such as, the French, the British and the Americans are no better off. Rather than applying the muscles which we all know they possess, they go public with heavy criticisms against coupists, but, behind the scenes, it's business as usual--buying uranium or oil or bidding for lucrative arms contracts.

The essence of this piece is not to trade the origin of military coups in the world's second largest continent. We already know enough about them, whether across the Magreb region of Africa , along its southern plains, within its eastern flank or among the sixteen or so countries that sit along its west coast. If, as everyone seems agreed, the Europeans granted independence to countries that were not only impoverished through economic exploitation, but, merely qualified as geographical expressions than real political entities, then, we must also agree that the political demigods who inherited power from the colonialists took it as if it were their personal property, and simply wouldn't let go.

Slowly, slowly, the officers and men who made up the young armies of those days started to smell the aroma of the corrupt acts of their civilian bosses. One by one, and in one country after another, they swooped on the political classes in their respective countries; and when they themselves got there, and tasted the forbidden fruit, they often stayed put, transforming themselves, in many cases, into civilian dictators.

Let's agree on one thing; namely, that from the 1960's when most African countries got their independence, to the early 1990's, when the Cold War was on its last legs, military coups were common place in Africa . The reason is that the Western Bloc, led by the United States , and the Eastern Bloc, led by the former U.S.S.R., was using our continent as one of the major theatres for their ideological warfare. As they competed fiercely for political and economic influence, either side did the best they could to institute instability in any country where the other had a stranglehold.

It was not just in Africa that those ideologically-oriented battles were being played out. In South America, they were fierce as well, including countries, like Argentina , Brazil , Peru and Costa Rica . In Bolivia , for instance, no less than 189 coups have taken place in the country, which by 1995 was only 150 years old.

In Asia , too, Cold War rivalries, plus other domestic factors, accounted for the numerous times that the armed forces in individual countries were in and out of politics. With the exception of India , virtually every other former colony of the British, the French, the Dutch and the Americans was ridden by one form of military dictatorship or the other: be it Indonesia , Pakistan , Srilanka , Afghanistan ,the Philippines , Bangladesh , Cambodia , Burmah (re-named Myammar) and Thailand , among others.

Even in Europe, the likes of Spain (forty years under General Franco), Greece , Cyprus and Turkey , were being harangued by military interventions up till the 1970's and 1980's.

Of course, the phenomenon of army intervention in politics has not been a problem exclusive to Africa . But, you will also agree with me that the Cold War was, and had to be, a major incentive for soldiers who shot or threatened their way into power back in the sixties, seventies and eighties.

That incentive was removed after the early 1990's when the ideological rivalry between the U.S. and the former Soviet Union formally came to an end. While we can argue, with a lot of instances in support, that the removal of the East-West confrontation has caused military coups in, say, Europe, and South America to drop off significantly, not a great deal has changed in the African arena. There is no denying the fact that, following the mid-1990's when several countries in southern Africa, as well as the west and east, replaced their military or single-party dictatorships with multi-party democracies, more and more countries have managed to join the band-wagon as it were,. Yet, I can argue, as well, that only a very small number of those African states have actually closed the door against the soldiers, so to speak. They have kept in place virtually every necessary incentive for the soldiery, and that is why Africa , more than any other part o f the globe, can relapse back into military take-over even in the twenty-first-century A.D.

Anyone who cares to listen should take this: We have become a laughing-stock in the eyes of the rest of the world. For reasons which we shall attempt to X-ray, West Africa is now worst-hit. Is it a coincidence that over the last five years, the likes of Madagascar (which is along the Indian Ocean) and the Comoros have posed the only such challenge outside the continent's west coast? I'm saying, in other words, that the West African sub-region, for whatever reason(s), has been responsible for a majority of the coup-calamity of the past half-decade. Are you talking about Guinea Bissau or Mauritania or, the latest of them, Niger Republic?

Today, no-one in Guinea-Conakry will say he or she has not regretted the overthrow of the post-Conte civilian government in December, 2008. The steady descent into chaos and mayhem has clearly made nonsense of virtually everything the Ecowas grouping has stood for.

But, then, when the soldiers struck, more than a year ago, nobody inside Guinea , not even the civilian population, complained. People went about their normal business as if nothing had happened. Those in the political opposition, including the civil society welcomed the soldiers, only making feeble protestations about a quick return to multi-party democracy.

Those in the western world, who could have made the soldiers think twice, simply looked on, if not in bemusement, but, in ridicule, as the people of Guinea were literally jumping from the fry-pan to fire, without seeming to realise it.

Twice in eighteen months, the army had intervened in Mauritania to remove two civilian governments. The first coup happened in 2005 against long-running ruler, Mohammed seed Ould Taya and everybody rushed out onto the streets to cheer. The only motivation, it would appear, was that everyone was already tired and frustrated at not only the longevity of Mr. Ould Taya's rule, but, the man just would not accept political reform.

However, the return of the army in 2007, not bothered that anyone would challenge them, surprised everyone. What the soldier who led the coup of three years ago simply did was to threaten not to stand down, unless everybody else accepted that he be allowed to contest forthcoming democratic polls. The ECOWAS people intervened and convened talks. But, because they had failed to act decisively in the past, the 2007 coup leader prevailed. Not only did he run, and actually did win, but, he still managed to prevail on everyone else to accept that the civilian, i.e. the elected president, he had overthrown in his bloodless coup d'etat should not contest the same election, despite his term being cut short by the coup.