Lately, political observers and the diplomatic community have increasingly voiced their frustration over the “stale political climate” in the West African nation of Guinea, which is a member of the regional Mano River Union grouping of Liberia and Sierra Leone. 

The sub region is just emerging from a crippling civil war which claimed the lives of nearly 2 million people and left many displaced in the last decade plus years.

Guinea, led by strong man General Lansana Conte who has wielded an iron grip on power for the last two decades, has remained relatively “stable” in the region and even supported and participated in peacekeeping efforts in neighboring Liberia and Sierra Leone. 

But with this relative “stability” has come an unbearable price - political and economic stagnation, one party dictatorial rule and poverty in this predominantly Muslim country.

Guinea has had only two presidents since independence from France in 1958. General Conte rose to power in 1984 when the military seized the government after the death of the first president Ahmed Sekou Toure.

Guinea did not hold 'democratic' elections until 1993 when the Guinean General who was head of the military government was elected president of the civilian government. Mr. Conte was re-elected in 1998 and again in 2003. Instability in neighboring Sierra Leone and Liberia has spilled over into Guinea on several occasions over the past decade, threatening stability, creating humanitarian emergencies and stretching that country’s meager resources.

International estimates in 2006 put refugees from Guinea’s neighbors of Liberia, Sierra Leone and Cote d’Ivoire at about 141,000.

In the Liberian conflagration exacerbated by the rebel Liberian United for Democracy (LURD) onslaught on the Charles Taylor administration, it was common knowledge that the rebels had training and support from the Guinean government, something that the Conte administration has officially denied.

The growing concern of an implosion in Guinea stems from the overwhelming frustration Guineans have endured since independence ranging from an effective concentration of power in the presidency to widespread corruption, non-transparency in government and devastating poverty. The Guinean government has yet to address troubling issues of:

-Restrictions on the right of citizens to change their government

-Unlawful killings by security forces

-Beatings and abuse of civilians, particularly detainees, by security forces

-Inhumane and life threatening prison conditions

-Impunity arbitrary arrest and prolonged pretrial detention

-Executive influence in the judiciary infringements on citizens' privacy rights and violence and discrimination against women among others.

 In its 2005 Human Rights report on Guinea, the U. S. State Department charged that “…Corruption remained widespread throughout society, including in the executive, legislative, and judicial branches. The president holds powers to overrule legislative decisions and did so in practice. Connection to the president or his powerful associates sometimes conferred exemptions from taxes and other fiscal obligations. Public funds were diverted for private use or for illegitimate public uses, such as buying expensive vehicles for government workers. Land sales and business contracts lacked transparency.”

The U.S. State Department report further maintained that “…the [Guinean] government and the World Bank published a critical report on corruption in the country during the year. Using polling data gathered in 2003, the report identified government agencies widely viewed as corrupt by citizens. It also identified how corruption affected everything from commercial transactions to judicial decision to civil service promotion…

Businessmen, government workers, and average citizens were among the hundreds of persons surveyed in the study…”

Although President Conte has been quietly pressured intensely by the international and donor communities to institute meaningful national reforms in all aspects of government, he continues to consolidate power. Quite recently, the ailing Guinean leader reshuffled his cabinet and surrounded himself with long time allies - a well known gimmick employed by most dictators to perpetuate themselves in state power.

The political opposition, student and teachers unions have been effectively marginalized and made somewhat inconsequential through broad governmental laws, financial restrictions and control and sometimes naked force. By the way, government employees are required to campaign for the ruling party for Unity and Progress of President Conte in each election.

The malaise in Guinea, has, on several occasions, including the past week, erupted in political protests and student demonstrations during which the government security forces violently put down the unrests fearing a popular people uprising.

In a more serious incident, in January and February of 2005, the government detained approximately 60 civilians and military officers for suspected involvement in an “assassination attempt” on President Conte. If this incident is true, it then represents an ugly by-product of an endemic lack of good governance and justice which Guineans crave and deserve.

It goes without saying, however, that Guineans should never employ the prescription of violent and unconstitutional change of state government to address political, economic and social inequities.

Guineans continue to view their national leadership through a narrow perspective of mistrust, and have all but given up on hopes for a redemption or modification of the political status quo.

The clash of ideology of the “Guinean Old Guards” representing over two decades of one party rule and patronage coupled with the young, ambitious, free- thinking and western-influenced populace is headed for a show-down sooner than later.

The ordinary Guinea sees no clear, peaceful process of political succession and is genuinely fearful that with the inevitable exit or demise of the president, the military will again forcibly seize the opportunity to fill the state leadership vacuum and pursue the recipe of military-turned-civilian governance for the foreseeable future. This scenario, for ordinary Guineans, negatively impacts their view of “democracy Guinean style.”

 New possibilities and opportunities for peaceful transition:

The profound ideals of a peaceful transition of political and democratic reforms in Guinea remain a challenge but are still achievable. Although a Guinean constitutional succession is on the “books," no one believes the process would be followed. President Conte should now seize the present opportunity to clear up any confusion of succession, guarantee future stability and preserve some kind of legacy for himself.

It is quite obvious that the liability and dilemma for President Conte is how and when to “step away” without fear of prosecution for would be crimes and  accountability for his two decades of governance. Many long time African leaders also have this dilemma.

This is where a face-saving mechanism would be welcomed.

Along with the opposition, President Conte should now adopt a comprehensive  methodology of forming a true national unity government by allowing internationally sanctioned free and fair elections to take place in Guinea. This would pay big  “dividends” if the political actors - government and opposition - agree to commit themselves to a set of national policies rather than their own political agenda.

This comprehensive transitional process should also ensure that at the end of the day the Guinean military would recognize its role as the protector of national sovereignty, accept and respect the will of the people to freely choose genuine civilian governance without fear of another “hijacking of state power.”