Africa has always been associated with dynasties and that trend is not going to end soon it seems. My tattered Oxford English dictionary provides two definitions for the word dynasty. I wish we stick to the first: as series of rulers all belonging to the same family. This definition is best suited for our African situation.

More than half the number of African countries is a lot of dynasties. Rulers do not necessarily come from biological family always. They do sometimes come from the same political family. In one way or the other, rulers are related to one another even simply by their Christian name. A noticeable example is the D.R. Congo where the first president was Joseph Kasavubu succeeded by Joseph Desiré Mobutu than after Laurent Desiré Kabila who was replaced by his son Joseph Kabila.

The stubbornness and doggedness to stay in power by some Africans leaders is always the policy reflection of their backers (God fathers) who wants them for one reason or another. It can be for business reasons; the way China openly supports tyrants for the sake of maintaining business relations. A palpable occurrence is that of President Omar El Bashir of Sudan. 

Influence is another reason. Former colonial powers always maintain an eye on their former colonies to impose this or that. In many instances, we tend to think that the enormous efforts invested by colonialists are primarily for business. France is a typical example. It imposes governments to maintain its leadership and allow the expansion of the French language in its former colonies (Gabon, Togo, Guinnée) or region (West Africa).

The United States of America is our third study case. It supports the likes of Meles Zenawi and Paul Kagame for a major reason, security. They assign police jobs to those rulers to be able counter attack the Al Qaeda infiltration in Africa.  In some other instance, it makes crucial concession for the sake of security. The most prominent example is what happened in Kyrgyzstan. Americans agreed to keep mum to atrocities by the government just to maintain the military base that serves their troops in Afghanistan.

It’s obvious to all of us that no government can be supported 100 percent by its people. A government that satisfies at least half its population is an extraordinary one in Africa. Die hard and haters will never cease to exist.

Rulers imposed to people can be guardian of a hegemony or business empire outside their national borders. Do we love or hate them just because their backed by foreign powers? Are dynasties kinds of guaranty against chaos prompt to occur during change of guard? Are they means of maintaining flows of aid from benefactors? Do autochthones really benefits of these relations? 

Answers to the above questions might answer our title. Isn’t it?