[ethbro]

Nobody's arguing colonial history doesn't have a huge number of mistakes.

But now, at this moment, policy going forward -- if not supporting democracy, democratically elected leaders, and the regular, peaceful transition of power, then what?

It's easy to cast stones, but useless without a better, prescriptive alternative.

Non-intervention on the world's part is why Gaddafi (42 years), Biya (43), Obiang (39), dos Santos (38), Mugabe (37), Museveni (33), etc. have been able (and are still able, in many cases) to rule their countries for decades.

Or, as Obama put it in his interview with Seinfeld in response to a question about how many world leaders are crazy, "A pretty sizable percentage [...] Part of what happens is, these guys, I think the longer they stay in office, the more likely that is to happen."

[kolikotime]

I would love a wonderful world in which France generally supported democratic leaders and encouraged democratization. Such a world would likely prove the death knell of Francafrique. But it is a complete falsehood that France has that vision, it still supports scores of tyrants in the region, and has looked past the way quite a number of times in the last three years alone.

You seem to think this is still “colonial history”. It is very much still modern history.

[ethbro]

I think France balances realpolitik against its ethics, with a veneer of corruption on top. Same as any world power.

That said, in comparison to post-WWII refuse-to-decolonize France? Objectively, modern France is far more ethical.

In regards to speed, as a political science professor once quiped to me, 'Countries don't change. The people with one set of ideas just get old and die.'