Guinea’s political elite has once more been rendered powerless by an army whose leaders owe their survival to a political system built upon confusion and fear.Though many political actors had long hoped for a coup to end Lansana Conté’s regime and the political impasse it generated, it is highly unlikely that the military junta which seized power last week will relinquish control and lead Guinea into a stable democratic era.

While the latest coup is a logical outcome of the socio-political situation of recent years, it is also a result of an inter-generational conflict within the army itself. There have been tensions for some time between an old military guard, which wanted to remain faithful to the “army unity pact” promoted by Conté, and a younger generation of opportunistic officers who have been seeking a platform from which to assert their authority.

But at the same time the coup and the absence of any substantial resistance to it highlights the complexity of Guinea’s political landscape.Since the early days of independence, Guinea has seemed trapped in political ambivalence, in which hopes are repeatedly raised then dashed. In all three major historical landmarks of the last 60 years – Ahmed Sékou Touré’s “1958 No” to French rule and his ensuing term in office; the failed democratic transition in the 1990s which followed the 1984 coup in which Lansana Conté came to power; and the January 2007 popular revolt initiated by the trade unions – the incompetence of the political class, including the opposition, has made the army a disturbingly destabilising factor.

In 2007, what began as a protest for better working and living conditions turned into a call for political reforms in Guinea which reflected the popular rejection of a regime that had failed dismally to improve living conditions. When the unions and political leaders reached a deal to end the crisis, one of the major concerns of Guineans was whether in the volatile environment of West Africa, the authorities would lead the country into an era of better governance.

After more than a year, there is consensus that the process has collapsed and that there are many challenges to establishing a democratic political process. When President Conté died, the question was whether his death, combined with the changing context brought about by social forces since January 2007, would break the political impasse without generating violence. But hardly had news of his death broken when the army again took control with a fallacious promise of a new transition.

It seems that at each time there is glimpse of hope, Guinea’s political elite is outclassed by forces over which it has little or no control. A review of the three major historic periods in Guinea’s political trajectory helps to make sense of the current political crisis.

Sekou Touré’s historic decision to reject the integration of his country into metropolitan France was saluted across the continent and paved the way for independence in 1958. With his anti-imperialist stand and pan-Africanist vision, Sekou Touré’s Guinea presented an image of radical experimentation in social and political development, and throughout his rule Guinea occupied a special position among African states.

Sekou Touré promised prosperity and dignity to Guineans. But a combination of external and internal factors compromised his leadership and forced him to resort to violence to survive. Internally, his regime was characterised by extreme repression, motivated by fear of assassination plots. Externally, it was isolated from the West and relied heavily on Soviet aid for development projects. But the aid was never sufficient to ensure that the basic needs of Guineans were met.

His political legacy is now a matter of controversy: like Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, he is celebrated as a hero for his stance on colonialism and his rhetoric on indigenous development, but blamed by many of his countrymen for failing to live up to the promise of independence by laying the foundations for sustainable development.

Ahmed Sekou Touré’s death in 1984 opened a new chapter, marking the first attempt at transforming the political system from autocratic rule to a pluralistic democratic system. At first, the bloodless military coup that brought Lansana Conté to power initiated an era of limited political restoration. Political prisoners were released and about 200,000 Guineans returned from forced exile. This was followed by some initiatives aimed at liberalizing the political and economic environment and improving relations with the West.

But the illusion did not last long. Within a few months, Lansana Conté reverted to authoritarian rule. His troops arrested and executed potential political rivals accused of plotting a coup. The victims included Conté’s close ally and then prime minister, Colonel Diarra Traoré.

The next attempt at political reform came with the 1990s wave of democratisation across Africa. When pressure from the street became unbearable, Conté introduced a quasi-democratic multiparty system – more to lure development partners than to respond to his people’s demand for accountability and improvement of socio-economic conditions.

Despite complaints by the opposition over the credibility of the electoral processes, Lansana Conté stood for the 1993 presidential elections and, amid controversies, was declared the winner with 51.7 percent of the vote. To further the reform process – or at least to give that impression – he appointed Sidya Touré, a technocrat, as his prime minister to liberalize the economy, reduce corruption, channel resources to local development initiatives and poverty alleviation. But he frustrated the prime minister’s efforts and his re-election in 1998 with 56.1 percent of the vote is best interpreted as the consolidation of his dictatorship and the failure of the democratic reform process.

Conté’s repressive rule continued unabated from that point. He dismissed Sydia Touré and entrusted most key government positions to members of his ethnic group (the Soussous) and party (The Parti de l’Unité et de Progrès –PUP). The five other prime ministers who have served since 1984 have either been subservient or were dismissed before they could implement reforms which might expose the scandals of the regime.

With the 2001 amendment of the constitution that removed term and age limits for presidential candidates, it became clear that there was little hope of an end to Conté’s regime. Many opponents, including Alfa Condé, leader of the main opposition party, the Rally of Guinea People (RPG), were repeatedly detained without trial. In 2003, Conté won another election, boycotted by the overwhelming majority of voters, this time around with 95.6 percent of the votes.

The popular riots of January 2007 marked the third decisive moment in Guinea’s political trajectory. The appointment of Lansana Kouyaté, former executive director of the Economic Community of West African States and former under-secretary general of the United Nations, raised hopes for political stability. But it did not in any shape or form guarantee the end of Conté’s system.

Kouyaté was quite capable of leading Guinea into a new socio-political era. But the country lacked the ingredients which experience has shown are necessary if countries are to achieve more or less acceptable political transitions in Africa. While the union leaders who took the initiative in demanding change succeeded in negotiating the terms of the transition, they failed to assess carefully enough the difficulty of implementing the agreement in a hostile political environment. Also, political parties failed to seize the opportunity to consolidate the concessions obtained by the unions by insisting on legal and constitutional changes to reinforce reform.

Prime Minister Kouyaté was unable to act without the authority of presidential decrees. These were often delayed by Conté or manipulated by hardliners within the ruling party, placing a major obstacle in the way of the Kouyaté and his cabinet. Once again, Guineans were misled by empty promises of good governance and a better life.

Twenty-four years after the coup that brought Lansana Conté to power, Guinea’s political elite has again pledged allegiance to a military junta that promises a return to constitutional rule in 2010. There is some evidence for cautious optimism that the anti-corruption stance of the new junta may bear fruit. But the new military authorities are progressively consolidating their control, inspired by the recent coup in Mauritania and confident that the African Union and the international community will not go beyond the rhetoric of condemnation.Fear has once again been deployed as a tool to induce a government to surrender, while citizens hoping to see some improvements to their living conditions will have to wait. The question is whether this will take another two decades of military rule or whether there is hope for democratic reform. In Guinea, as elsewhere in Africa, military coups hardly serve the interests of a coherent democratic political order.

The death of Guinea’s head of state, Lansana Conté, from diabetes on Monday has brought about a military rebellion against the constitution – a situation that, if not carefully handled, could escalate into a military confrontation.The president’s death, at the age of 74, was announced overnight on Monday by the president of the National Assembly, Aboubacar Samparé, accompanied by the military chief of staff, General Diarra Camara, and the Prime Minister, Ahmed Tidiane Souaré. They called on the president of the Supreme Court to note the vacancy in the presidency and to apply the relevant provisions of the constitution. They also appealed for calm from the population.

The constitution stipulates that in case of a vacancy in the presidency, or the incapacity of the president, affairs of state must be taken over by the president of the National Assembly, who is required to organize fresh elections within 60 days.

Show of force

The late president committed the sin of not handing over power according to the constitution. Despite his age and his deteriorating health, he chose to be president for life, heading a government characterised by mismanagement and ill-considered control of the affairs of state. Incapable of handling state affairs, he created a vacuum at the helm. Meanwhile, the barons of the regime censored information about the president’s health.

In matter of fact, the army has controlled matters of state for many years. It is within this context that the men in uniform decided to rebel against the constitution barely a day after the Conté’s death. According to Agence France-Presse, on December 23 an army captain announced on radio the dissolution of the government and the institutions of the republic and the suspension of the constitution.

Captain Moussa Dadis Camara, reading from a communique on Radio Conakry, said: “As from today, the constitution has been suspended as well as political and trade union activities.” He declared that “the government and all institutions of the Republic have been dissolved,” adding that a consultative council comprising “civilian and military” officials will soon be established.

The army captain, who until now has headed the fuel department of the army, indicated the “profound disappointment of the population” at the state of the country and accused the government of being responsible.

But the army is far from united. There is a deep division between those close to the chief of staff and the rest of the army.

The risk of confrontation

One cannot help but think that in this race for power, caused by a vacuum at the helm, there is a risk of a military confrontation in which innocent civilians will, as always, be the victims.

In the current circumstances, the unarmed opposition will need to exhibit political maturity and a sense of patriotism to permit the electorate freely to elect a successor to Conté. ECOWAS, the Economic Community of West African States, can also help Guinea through a smooth transition and the organization of a free and transparent election.

While President Conté may have gone, the people of Guinea will have a difficult time forgetting an era of dictatorship, poverty and mismanagement.

Biographical details

President Lasana Conté was born in Moussayah Loumbay, not far from Conakry. He was from the Soussou ethnic group, which constitutes about 20 percent of the 9.6 million inhabitants of Guinea, and was the son of a peasant. After completing his course on the Koran, he was trained in Bingerville, in Côte d’Ivoire, and Saint-Louis, in Sénégal.He joined the army in 1955 and later quit the French army as a sergeant when Guinea achieved independence in 1958. He came to power through a coup on April 3 1984, a week after the death of the “father of independence,” Ahmed Sékou Touré. Conté’s health has been in decline since 2002 and he took up residence in his village of Wawa, 80 kilometres north of Conakry, but was bent on holding onto power until the end of his mandate in 2010. Unfortunately his 24 years of power has come to an end in this West African state.