Dear Mr. Mbeki,
I am a 51-year old African scholar who, besides spending 21 years in emerging democracies in Latin America, also has lived in Europe and the United States. Therefore, I am very familiar with dictatorships and its mobcracies, transition to democracy and democracy consolidation, and the republican form of government. You have noticed that I've coined a new term "the mobcracy" to avoid any confusion with “democracy”. As you know, there are tons of mobsters camouflaged as presidents in Africa who still spray or are planning to spray their opponents on the face with tear gas! I will use these lines as a teaching moment about democracy for current and future African leaders. These are my four truths or les quatre vérités:
1. Holding elections does not mean you're living in a democracy. It does not even mean that you're transitioning towards democracy. It is just a step to put you at the door of a more complex transitional process where bright minds are needed to create a more inclusive society that promotes prosperity for all and a population and institutions committed to respecting human rights across tribal and regional lines. I’ll later explain how you do it, just hold on!
2. Africa’s collective memory is rich in experiences with tyranny and dictatorships and poor in experience with democracy or successful transition towards democracy. This continental disadvantage applies to South Africa as well since it is still on the learning curve thanks to leaders like you and our beloved Nelson Mandela. In Latin America, we often talk of re-democratization and we’ve noticed that those countries with positive successful experience with democracy (the case of Chile) get on their feet quicker after a dictatorship than those with negative democratic experience (just look at Venezuela!). When I arrived in Latin America in the 1980s, Augusto Pinochet was still ruling Chile and when I departed, Chile was ruled by its fourth democratically-and-fairly-elected president, Michelle Bachelet, who later handed the power over to Sebastián Piñera, on whose LAN Chile planes I flew to New York a few times! Again, bright minds are needed. You simply cannot transition to democracy with the current incumbents. This leads me to the third truth.
3. Transition to democracy means that the tyrannical regime must surrender or be defeated. It is against political science theory and praxis to have dictators at the helm of the democracy transition process. Dictators will NEVER be democrats; they can only become “dictocrats” (another term I coined months ago!). The fact that a person was once fairly elected doesn’t make him necessarily a democrat!
4. Building a democracy is a complex process that requires people’s own commitment to education and to being educated. Otherwise, we will end up with corrupt parliaments receiving bribes to change constitutions or pass laws to benefit certain individuals. Let’s not stop there! We will end up with citizens selling their votes to criminals for a bowl of rice and beans. The process also requires a check-and-balance system at national and local levels to enforce the law and prosecute everybody who breaks the law, not only the “small fishes”!

This is just a self serving response. You should have addressed the core issues Mr Mbeki raised in the article. What is new in your "teachable moment". I wish you had educated yourself from the many years of experience you claim to have.

Who is man to crush freedom of speech? Who is man to dictate what "should" or "should not" be written? Freedom is the essence of creativity, which is primarily a mental exercise. Who is man to prohibit an intellectual exercise of associating elections, democracy transition, democracy consolidation, and "the mobcracy" in a larger African context? No doubt, freedom is a pearl of great price and whoever is against it has chosen the wrong forum! A bon entendeur, salut!

I read in amusement the piece written by President Thambo Mbeki and could not help but wondered wether his judgement has been clouded by an afrocentric ideology that tends to want to exclude non Africans from African affiairs or he genuinely believed his own lie about what is best for Africa.

If it was the former, I would say to him Afrocentricity should not be an excuse to forster on us injustices and illegitimate Governments. An election was held, there was a clear winner, the loser be it an incumbent or God has no right to attempt to stay in power.

And if it was the latter I would not be too surprised as his intervention elsewher in Zimbabwe was an embarrasment to many of us who are Africans. We all know that Mugabe lost the election yet Thambo Mbeki was able to put together an arrangement that compensated him for losing an election to the detriment of the winner.

What an obvious shame faced injustice. If That is the African way I would rather preffer to renounce my African heritage. Kofi Annan did the same in Kenya.

What Message are we sending to the rest of the world? That in Africa elections are just for window dressing as no matter what, incumbent will always win and when they do'nt ,they must be kept in power at the expence of the winner. "Utter Rubish"

The excuse that Alassane Ouattara was not an Ivorian is a poor one indeed to try to disqualify a former minister of a Finance of a country because he was popular enough to pose an elctoral threat to other peoples ambition.

Mr Mbeki should realise this was not the first time such tactic has been used, their authors are no better than those who are looking for ways to illegitimise President Obama tenure as president on the basis that he was not born in the USA, when his birth certificate says he was born in Hawaii.

On the issue of Ivory coast being divided and efforts should have been made to re-unite the two warring parts before an election. Here Mr Mbeki stopped making sense, democracy and elections are part of a country's healing process as it gives the poulation opportunities to listen to various view-points and in a civilised manner decide the ones they liked.

If we should use Mr Mbekis own coubtry as example. The Apatheid regime in South Africa did not use this excuse after it became clear that the winds have been taken off their sails. The South African first election and all subsequent elections are part of the healing process and this process will continue until and even after the first opposition government wins election in South Africa. This I hope will happen one day.

Then and only then can we actually claim that democracy is entrenched in that South Africa and not Mr Mbeki's Afro styled democracy where might is right and incumbents are gods

And I can only hope bthe same for all other African countries including my beloved Nigeria.

Way to go Mr President!!!

To the "bright mind" that speaks in his comment about the four truths ..... It might be important to remind to him that even in his South American version of "creeping dictatorship" one has NEVER but i MEAN NEVER witnessed Ambassadors of a "president elected" received in "democratic countries".
Might be usefull to start looking at teh facts with your eyes and not with your ears!!!
For his information President Mbeki was the one that received Father Aristide in his country!!!
Interestingly enought Aristide is today ...... by far......... the lost sought after politician of that Island!!!!!

Time is coming!

ANIANG,
Your Organization has so many times waited for adjustment, to be determined by member states. However until today, its staff and the Secretary General, reflect the real constellation of power in world affairs. After the disappearance of certain states from the World Map, Russia's own successful degradation into a developing third world power, with ever diminishing population and the emergence of a Superpower China , which is more concerned with face lifting and adjusting to capital requirements then with fighting injustice in World Affairs, former Colonial States as in 1956 during the Suez Crisis, are testing how far they could go in stretching the UN Charter and reimpose their own uncontrolled rule over certain territories of the World. As always, people, human beings, mainly from former colonial nations are suffering.

Considering that Mr. Lars Rise is a former parliamentarian of a civilized and well-respected country such as Norway, the high degree of dishonesty and lack of integrity that he has exhibited in statements attributed to me in his comments on Mr. Thabo Mbeki's article that appeared in Foreign Policy (FP) on 29 April 2011 is simply shocking and appalling.

When officials at the Royal Norwegian Embassy in Abidjan requested me in mid-January 2011 to meet with Mr. Rise, they introduced him as a former member of the Norwegian Parliament on a private visit to Cote d'Ivoire to see his 'friend', Mr. Laurent Gbagbo, who had expressed the wish to be briefed by officials of the United Nations Operation in Cote d'Ivoire (UNOCI) on the human rights situation in the country. As director of UNOCI's Human Rights Division, I received Mr. Rise in my office on 17 January in the presence of two officials of the Norwegian Embassy - the Ambassador and one Political Affairs Officer.

Mr. Rise maliciously states that I "admitted" that I "was behind the false information given to the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights in Geneva, that a third mass grave had been reported in the Ivory Coast and that the Gbagbo security forces prevented UN forces from finding it". In December 2010 and January 2011, UNOCI received information from various sources alleging the existence of 'mass graves' in N’dotré, a locality on the outskirts of Abidjan, and other locations in the west and the centre of Cote d'Ivoire. These allegations that were widely relayed by several national and international news media were brought to the attention of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights by UNOCI. However, neither the High Commissioner nor UNOCI (especially its Human Rights Division) treats information on alleged human rights violations as 'false' or 'true' until it has been properly verified.

UNOCI dispatched joint teams of civilian and military investigators to each of the three localities in which mass graves were alleged to be found with a view to conducting inquiries that would enable us to ascertain whether the allegations were true or false. On each of these occasions, UNOCI's human rights investigation teams, including the one to N’dotré that was led personally by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Mr. Y.J. Choi, on 20 December 2010, were prevented by armed elements of defence and security forces loyal to Mr. Laurent Gbagbo from reaching the sites where mass graves allegedly existed. As it was our duty to do, we reported to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights not only the fact that we had received unconfirmed information about the existence of alleged mass graves in Cote d'Ivoire, but also the fact that we had been prevented by pro-Gbagbo defence and security forces from visiting the sites of these alleged mass graves for the purpose of conducting investigations that would enable us to establish the veracity or falsehood of the information that we had received. The High Commissioner briefed the United Nations Human Rights Council accordingly at its special session on Cote d'Ivoire held in Geneva on 23 December 2010. Her statement to the Council was widely reported by the international news media, including the International Herald Tribune.

The two facts mentioned above that we reported to the High Commissioner and which she, in turn, brought to the attention of the Human Rights Council were just that - 'facts'. That armed elements of pro-Gbagbo defence and security forces forcibly denied UNOCI human rights investigators access to the sites of alleged mass graves is a ‘fact’, not 'false information'. As long as this forcible denial of access made it impossible for us to conduct the investigations that would have allowed us to determine the veracity or falsehood of information alleging the existence of mass graves, such information could not be classified peremptorily and arbitrarily as 'false' or 'true'. Until we verified it, we could only treat it, as I told Mr. Rise at our meeting on 17 January, as rumour.

In several radio, television and newspaper interviews that I granted to national and international news media in December 2010 and January 2011, to the frequently asked question if I could confirm whether the United Nations had found mass graves in Cote d'Ivoire, I consistently answered that: 1) we had received information from various sources about the possible discovery of mass graves in several parts of the country; 2) we were treating such information seriously and wished, therefore, to investigate it; 3) regrettably, our efforts to verify the information had been thwarted by Mr Gbagbo's defence and security forces that repeatedly denied us access to the sites of alleged mass graves; 4) pending our own inquiries into the allegations, we would continue to treat the information received as rumour; 5) consequently, the United Nations could neither confirm nor deny the existence of mass graves in Cote d'Ivoire. It is, therefore, outrageously malicious for Mr. Rise to state that I 'admitted' to him that I was behind 'false information' provided to the High Commissioner concerning the existence of mass graves in Cote d'Ivoire.

In another shameful travesty of the truth, Mr. Rise states that “Mr. Munzu was offered free access to the alleged site for the mass grave by the Ministry of Interior, but he stated that he was not interested”. As other participants at the 17 January meeting would recall, Mr. Rise produced a letter signed and delivered to him that afternoon by Mr. Laurent Gbagbo’s ‘Minister of Interior’. The letter authorized him to visit any alleged mass grave sites that he wished to see and instructed all defence and security forces to give him access to such sites. He indicated that, based on this authorization, he intended to visit the alleged mass grave site in N’dotré that same afternoon, ahead of his departure from Cote d’Ivoire the next day. He considered this a ‘good opportunity’ for the ‘international community’ to verify the truth of the alleged existence of a mass grave at N’dotré. He, therefore, invited the Norwegian Embassy and UNOCI to join him in his visit to N’dotré.

The Norwegian Ambassador declined Mr. Rise’s ‘offer’ on behalf of his Embassy, highlighting the private nature of his visit to Cote d’Ivoire to which the Norwegian Government and Embassy did not wish to be associated. I declined the same ‘offer’ on behalf of UNOCI, pointing out that: 1) in view of the will expressed by the Ivorian people, the majority of whom voted for Mr. Alassane Ouattara at the 28 November presidential election, the United Nations recognized neither Mr. Laurent Gbagbo as the legitimate President of Cote d’Ivoire nor the author of the letter exhibited by Mr. Rise as the legitimate Ivorian Minister of Interior; consequently, we regarded the letter issued by the ‘Minister’ without value or effect; 2) in any event, UNOCI’s mandate as defined by the UN Security Council included investigating and reporting on all serious human rights violations taking place anywhere in Cote d’Ivoire; inherent to this mandate was the permanent and continuous freedom of movement of UNOCI human rights investigators to move all over the Ivorian territory; their movement did not, and could not, depend on ad hoc or case-by-case authorization by an Ivorian Minister of Interior, not even a legitimate one; to accompany Mr. Rise to N’dotré on the basis of the written authorization given by Mr. Gbagbo’s ‘Minister of Interior’ would send the wrong and unacceptable message that the movement of UNOCI personnel, especially its human rights investigators, henceforth depended upon prior authorization by the government; in the nearly seven years since the establishment of UNOCI, the government of Cote d’Ivoire had never had to authorize the movement of its staff or the conduct of its activities on a case-by-case basis; we would be setting a bad precedent in this regard if we were to join Mr. Rise on his investigation mission based on the authorization of the ‘Minister’.

I urged Mr. Rise, if he really wanted to render a service to the international community, to ask his ‘friend’, Laurent Gbagbo, to lift his restrictions on the movement of UNOCI personnel and to instruct his defence and security forces accordingly. In the light of the full discussion that the four of us had at the meeting in my office concerning Mr. Rise’s invitation to the Royal Norwegian Embassy and UNOCI to join him on his trip to N’dotré based on authorization from an illegitimate ‘Minister of Interior’, it is highly dishonest of Mr. Rise to tell readers of FP that I “was offered free access to the alleged site for the mass grave by the Ministry of Interior” but I “stated” that I “was not interested”.

As it turned out, with the weakening of the hold of pro-Gbagbo forces on Abidjan and the surrounding neighbourhoods, UNOCI human rights investigators were finally able to investigate information concerning the alleged existence of a mass grave in N’dotré on Saturday 12 and Monday 14 March 2011. Upon the conclusion of their investigations, UNOCI officially issued a press release (No. 982 of 17 March 2011) in which it stated that, during the two visits to N’dotré, its investigators had "seen no mass grave sites, nor any traces of them". The statement added that the investigators had "not found any corpses at the half-constructed 'morgue' building in N’dotré, where a number of bodies were said to have been kept. Given that this morgue is an unfinished construction with no facilities such as a cold chamber, bodies could not have been kept there for a long period of time".

Because UNOCI had, at last, been able on 12 and 14 March 2011 to verify information first received in December 2010 about the possible existence of a mass grave at N’dotré, the United Nations was able to tell Cote d'Ivoire and the world on 17 March, based on its own investigations, that this information was false. This outcome could have been achieved as early as December 2010 if Mr. Gbagbo and his defence and security forces had not chosen, in the context of the crisis that followed the 28 November 2010 presidential election, to apply their policy of relentless obstruction to the movement of UNOCI personnel and to the conduct of UNOCI activities, including those related to the implementation of the UN mission’s mandate to investigate and report on the gross human rights violations that were taking place in the country.

Mr. Rise crowns his exhibition of dishonesty and lack of integrity with the assertion that “when the first reports of massacres in Duekue (sic) were published”, according to which “maybe as many as 1000 people had been killed and burnt by the Ouattara rebels”, I revised this figure to only 330 people killed, 220 of them by Ouattara forces and the remaining 110 by Gbagbo forces. The ‘problem’ for me, Mr. Rise triumphantly writes, was that on the same day as I supposedly gave out these figures, it was “confirmed on the UN web site for OCHA” that “around 800 civilians were killed in Duekue (sic)”, all of them “by the Ouattara rebel forces”. It does not seem to matter to Mr. Rise that I was continuously absent from Cote d’Ivoire and UNOCI, on home leave followed by administrative leave, from 1 March to 23 April 2011. During this period, I issued no statement or figure whatsoever regarding events in Cote d’Ivoire, including civilian deaths in Duekoue.

I can understand Mr. Rise wanting to stand up for his ‘friend’, Mr. Laurent Gbagbo, especially after the latter’s recent fall from power in Cote d’Ivoire. What I fail to understand is why he appears to believe that using the columns of FP to lie so blatantly about me to the readers of this distinguished magazine is an effective (and, perhaps, the best) way to do so. He ends his libelous comments with the recommendation that consideration should be given to “how the UN officers in Abidjan (especially me, I suppose) may be held responsible for misleading the international community - together with France and the Ouattara forces”. While this is being considered, perhaps I should give some thought to how Mr. Rise may be held responsible for maliciously and libelously misleading readers of FP, the Ivorian people and the international community at large about me.

I wrote a short statement about my visit to the Ivory Coast and met with Laurent Gbagbo for the second time in my life and Simon Munzu for the first time and did not expect to have this strong and long reaction from Mr. Munzu - even with special labels and descriptions of me.

It is interesting to see that Simon Munzu through his 2300 words comment to my short statement in fact is confirming the main points in my article.

My concern was that the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights gave a statement in Geneva about her concern over the news she had received of a third mass grave reported in the Ivory Coast. Simon Munzu stated in our meeting that he was the source and that it regrettable was printed as a fact, while the reality was that this was just un undocumented rumour. Mr. Munzu even showed me a note book with notes that he received about rumours of mass graves found. He also showed me an email that he received from Reuters journalist apologizing that the story was communicated as a fact and not just as a rumour.

From my point of view it is very serious when the High Commissioner goes public with a statement about mass graves reported. United Nations should not be involved in spreading undocumented rumours in a very tense situation. Simon Munzu was the source of the information, and even after this was printed in International Herald Tribune, he has done nothing to correct the false story. It is very serious when the United Nations no longer can be trusted to give correct information.

I am happy to hear that Simon Munzu now can confirm that the story about the mass grave in fact was false and that the UNOCI later found no bodies on the reported site. This may serve as a reminder of how important it is for the United Nations to avoid contributing to spreading information which has not been confirmed yet. Mr. Munzu states in his comment that if the security forces of Gbagbo has allowed the UN forces to pass, the story could have been denied already in December, now we had to wait until March 17. The mistrust between the Gbagbo forces and the UNOCI existed partly because UN vehicles repeatedly was stopped containing rebel forces. But if Mr. Munzu had been interested, the verification could have taken place on January 17. But he confirms in his reply to me that he was not interested for formal reasons.

Concerning the Duekue massacres of civilians, I assume Mr. Munzu was responsible for information provided by the UNOCI Human rights office even in his absence? I apologize the use of his name if this is not the case. The fact is that the UNOCI Human Rights office tried to downgrade the seriousness conncected to the Duekue massacre stating that it was not 1000 bodies, - it was 330 and one third of them were first killed by Gbagbo forces. This was stated from Abidjan at the same time as the official UN web site for OCHA stated that around 800 were killed and Ouattaras rebel forces alone were to blame. Should we trust the UNOCI Human rights office in Abidjan? Or should we trust the UN representatives who reported from the site of the tragedy?

This is why I suggested that it should now be concidered how the UN officers in Abidjan may be held responsible for misleading the international community - together with France and the Ouattara forces.

And, - by the way - the norwegian ambassador did not decline, nor was he invited to participate on a trip to the alleged mass grave site. This was no topic in the meeting and the statement from Mr. Munzu is baseless. Mr. Munzu declined though to visit the alleged site on January 17, - the day we had a possibility to visit it together.

With all due respect Mr. President, I think Adama is right in pointing out the lack of leadership of YOU, our African leaders in handling our own conflicts. Why a foreign power or "organization" would try and finally "resolve" the quarrel in your house if yourself you can fix it? Again, why didn`t you with other African leaders who share your view on the Ivorian case speak out and why didn`t you lobby President Zuma on such matter since France needed - and this is another truth - the support from South Africa to intervene in Cote d`Ivoire...?

Another important thing that Mr. President, you seem to avoid telling is that Ouattara really won the elections. In fact, data showed and it`s the truth, that in any case - were the elections held again or the count redone - that Gbagbo could have not been elected. Instead, the former President prepared for war and one thing as someone who used to hail him for his "democratic discourse" will hardly understand and yet forgive is how could he manipulate our constitution so that he could be declared President when the very same constitution asks for new elections? How could Gbagbo consider himself elected violating the same constitution that he defend himself comply with?

Again the turning point is the key role that the president of the constitution played in the conflict and the fact is finally that Ouattara is right but he used the wrong means to get to the power.

Actually, the French intervention in 2002 took place AFTER the rebels had already been fought back a first time by the loyalists in the South. The French had refused to activate their defense pact with the Ivorian government, even though the rebellion had been supported, one way or another, by an external power, Burkina Faso's Compaore (another great examplar of undemocratic leadership, and a well-known minion of "Francafrique"). Whether the subsequent intervention of French troops (again on vaguely humanitarian/peacekeeping grounds) benefited the rebels more than the loyalists has been a point of contention. More recently, the rebels were able to take the rest of the country in no small part because loyalist troops had been starved and demoralized for several weeks (due in large part to the financial lockdown imposed on the entire population under Mr. Ouattara's request--I guess the end always justifies the means!) whereas, meanwhile, rebel forces were strangely well-armed, well-fed and well-organized (in ways which obviously hinted at foreign support, at the very least).

In any case, blaming Gbagbo for delaying elections since 2005 (the dominant narrative in French media) seems completely absurd in light of the facts highlighted by Mr. Mbeki: to summarize, under the relevant agreements, the disarmament of the rebels was a precondition to the holding of free and fair elections. That disarmament never occured, therefore the elections were delayed. Why blame Gbagbo for the fact that the rebels did not disarm? What kind of credible elections (credible in the eyes of the parties that matter most: that is, the opposing Ivorian parties) could take place when half of the country was ruled outside of the law?

Mr. Mbeki seems to me closer to the truth than Christophe.

In 1999 Who choosed not to intervene when president Bedie House (aka the presidency was under attack by a certain IB). Woody Woodpecker (WWP), i beleive!
In 2002 who armed and formed the rebelion??? WWP I beleive!
In 2011 who decided for the first time in History to receive an "president-elected" ambassador in his soil! FWWPi think!!!
Look with your eyes boy!

Since 2005 Gbagbo has been explaining to everyone that there was an "z'internationnal" plot from the same community recognisable by its lack of registered adress and who has been playing the vice gods since the 1850 (meeting formally in 1884-85!)
Well! Who can say the contrary today in a country where there is a governement of a "president-elected" formed .............................. BEFORE HIS OWN INAUGURATION ????????????
Anybody has ever asked who (and on on what "legal"basis?!?) has orderd expenses related to this "show" when the country has not "yet" received "humanitarian" aid????

I assumed the president .........who is..... himself ......... under house arrest!!!! Strangely enough charges are not yet laid and "inauguration" is 15 days away!!! I guess with the current rush to lay thoses charges we ought to assume that he may not be ........ invited to the only inauguration organised by "occult" funds ........ ever.

Quid of constitutionnal references !!!!! They will bring an economics professeur and current president of the National assembly in the spotlight !!! Who need a man who can count at these time of "irrationnal exhuberance" to quote "the" former MAN!

This is what could be called a beautifull"e" coup dEtat!

Talking about the former MAN, I am wondering if all of this will avoid the downgrade of the US debt that a US company (Standart and Poors) has promised to its own governement!!!!!
Another upcoming "western" showdown where the "Licorne force" might be needed!!!!
Well, we won't bother with France! The are too busy with Aqmi, Morroco, Lybia and the upcoming depature of Sarkosy! They wont even see their own downgrade coming!
After all, with 85 percent of it won GDP already spent, what other option does those nations have than transforming themselves into imperialist and neo-esclavagist countries!

Ah! I almost forgot "My" Buddy Sarko 1er Roy de France! He might be the first to retire avoiding it own guillotine!
Who (then!) will be suprise to hear that he has retired in a "chocolate island! After all the Chocolates conglomerates have never had it so good since Houphopuet, Guei and or even the current "leader of the PDCI! ALl apparently did not want to do what the burkina-boy has agreed to do: Lower the prices by all MEANS NECESSARY!!!

Precision to the party speaking about the basis of teh revolution in Latin America. It was Petion (Ruler of Haiti) that gave to Bolivar shelter in 1815 when he was expelled from "british" JAMAICA! He also gave to him ammunitions, guns and "mobile" printery!!! He was supposed to, in return, bring back to HAITI all the slaves that he would free in Latin America! Hence the reason why there is such a relation between todays Venezuela and Haiti!

It is fallacious and mischievous that South Africa has got a desire to lead Africa, our desire and dream is see Africa taking her rightful place in global affairs and prospering economically. This is an African century we must claim it and own it.Philani@Durban.South Africa

Once upon a time, Simon Bolivar, inspired by the US Revolution, started his own and liberated a good chunk of South America. Ironically, he became a dictator! Why? There are just two models for modern society: a republic or a democracy. Let's start with a republic, which I also call "democracy elevated". It's a political system based on representation as well. However, the president is not viewed nor acts as a king. The system is highly decentralized and individuals' rights are protected against abuse by local and national leaders within an effective check-and-balance system. It is a cradle of freedoms, and a nation that intends to build it will enjoy everlasting prosperity and dominion over the rest of the world for freedoms are the driving engine of prosperity. Now, let's turn to what is commonly known as "democracy". Some call it "guillotine", a system of representation centered on the "strongman", i.e., the president (or even prime minister), who tends to dominate the entire political environment and becomes what I love to call "a king without a throne". Chavez, Putin, and many others I do not want to name, you got it! Where is Africa heading to "after" its tyrannies? Evidence shows that the idea of the "strongman" still circulates around, making after tyranny resemble to tyranny in some ways. That road leads inevitably to tyranny and chaos. Remember Simon Bolivar story at the beginning? Solution: start building a republic and you decentralize as I've said it tons of times on Foreign Policy giving back the power to the people and you make sure no despot arises at local level either. Without effective check-and-balance systems between the three branches of government, African emerging democracies are doomed to failure!

Merzuah sorry to tell you that you are totally wrong! Your analysis prove that your are under strong disinformation made by international media!
Gbagbo has not lost the election, and he has never uses any monkey plan to pepertuate his stay in power.
was an électoral dispute and GBAGBO just told that the best way to solve this dispute is to recount the vote. Only that should take maximum one week and the truth would then arise. No need to fight, no need to kill people. Now ouattara has made a putsch with the help of french army. ouattara has no legality to stay in power and he should be kicked off by his own medecine!
We in abidjan are living under or in a real dictatorship, since arrival of this man: real terror and no freedom anymore: all oposition leaders are in jail, no oposition news paper, everyday discrimanation for these that are not same ethnic group like ouattara. This is the reality that no international media shows!
Mister Mbeki nows well the file he is speaking of for he was deeply implied in solving this since years ago so wasn't the case for many people that are commenting here and that has information through the lies of media!