Military takeover of governments in Africa is the talk again. The two most recent cases, in Gabon only a week ago and Niger a little over two weeks before that, have generated a lot of commentary and analyses by experts and ordinary people alike.
Some of it is sensible stuff. A lot more is uninformed, prejudiced, or outright wrong.
Change of government by unconstitutional means is not new. Some decades ago, it was common in Africa, Asia, and Latin America. It still happens. Only it goes by another name - regime change - which the authors of the earlier military coups d'état now prefer.
Perhaps to make it a little less reprehensible and not conjure up the sounds, images and horror of a violent armed take over. Never mind that even in this supposed change by political means, you still see the same means: dirty tricks, treachery and other underhand methods, arm-twisting and squeezing of other delicate parts, and more.
What is perhaps new (until the most recent cycle) was their near-universal condemnation. The earlier ones (1960s-1980s) had been almost accepted as inevitable, necessary even, or a phase in the political evolution of the new states. Nearly all of them received support or favourable coverage from the western media.
In the three decades after independence (1960-1990), they were often instigated and directed by the United States and Western European countries, especially the former colonial powers. When these were not overtly involved, they looked the other way as soldiers overthrew legally constituted governments.
Coups were brutal affairs in which heads of state and government were assassinated and their supporters and kin massacred. Some might remember the assassinations of Patrice Lumumba, prime minister of Congo Kinshasa in 1960, Sylivanus Olympio, president of Togo in 1963, Sir Abubaker Tafawa Balewa, Prime Minister of Nigeria in 1966, and Thomas Sankara, president of Burkina Faso in 1987.
The western media cheered the new military rulers as heroes coming to end dictatorships or unpopular, corrupt or failed governments and to restore order.
Of course, the truth was more complex than that. It went beyond distaste for dictators, love for democracy or concern for the wellbeing of ordinary Africans. In many instances, the real democrats or those dedicated to changing livelihoods were the targets of coups, while the most obnoxious dictators were feted and supported and held up as exemplary leaders.
Nearly all the leaders targeted for removal from office or elimination were those who appeared to be charting an independent path for their countries, or threatening to break with their former colonial rulers, or perceived to be getting too close to the communist Soviet Union.
The coup d'état at the time, (as its regime change variant today) was an instrument by the west for containing the influence of the Soviet Union in Africa and, more importantly, preventing them from getting their hands on the natural resources of the continent, which they wanted to keep for themselves.
The talk about democracy, good governance, and more recently, human rights, was only a pretext, never the real concern.
Then there was a period, the last three decades, when there were no coups in Africa. Any that was attempted, was quickly put down. An air of optimism developed and coups began to be talked about as a thing of the past and increasingly difficult to pull off. Several reasons gave rise to this feeling of optimism.
First, democracy was taking hold. Evidence? Regular elections and change of governments through the ballot.
Second, the threat of the communists taking over Africa and its resources had disappeared with the collapse of the Soviet Union. The domination of the US and its western allies was now unchallenged. It was therefore no longer necessary to oust or kill African leaders thought to be getting out of line. In any case, they had developed other methods of keeping them in check.
Third, the African Union (AU) had taken a tough stand against change of government by unconstitutional means. This stand got its teeth from several sources. All member states subscribe to it.
The UN, United States and the European Union (EU) support it. It carries serious threats, such as diplomatic isolation through suspension from the organisation, economic punishment through sanctions, and the use of military force.
For a while, that seemed to work. At least we thought that was part of the reason coups were not happening. Now they are happening again despite these tough measures and supposed growth of a democratic tradition. What went wrong?
Sign up for free AllAfrica Newsletters
Get the latest in African news delivered straight to your inbox
Perhaps the reality is different from what some were getting excited about and the three decades without coups were only a lull before they returned.
Maybe the idea of the growth of democracy was only an illusion. We were paying too much attention to the form (elections) and appearances, and neglecting the essence (governance).
We were touting democracy and did not notice we had a shortage of democrats especially among the political class. We had governors who were not leaders, and these seemed to hold power on behalf of foreign interests.
In that sense, there is not much difference between now and thirty years ago and earlier. In another sense, however, today's coups d'état are different from the earlier ones.
The soldiers are not blind agents of external actors concerned about losing influence to another, foreign rival. They are actually rebelling against what they see as collusion between African leaders and those external interests that do not benefit the nation. That is probably why they have massive popular support. It is also the big difference between them and the earlier coups.
