The Cannibal Emperor?

I've been a bit slack of late, failing to update the old Histbusters blog for some months. It's not that there has been a lack of juicy history myths out there, just that I couldn't be arsed.

But here I am, back to dissect and probe into one of my favourite little legends - the curious case of Emperor Jean-Bedel Bokassa, completely-and-utterly fucked up leader of the Central African Republic (or Empire, as he called it from '76 until '79).

This guy was a case, no doubt about it. He makes other tinpot African dictators look like proud, mighty, honourable and decent leaders. He was the sort of nut that Idi Amin would have enjoyed to share a bottle or two of CAR biere with, on the veranda next to his crocodile-infested lake.

There is one myth in particular that I want to tackle: was Bokassa a cannibal, as his critics later claimed?

Bokassa began his career as a soldier, serving in the French army. He fought the Vichy french in WW2, and later served in Indochina against the communist forces there. After Central African independence, he quickly rose through the ranks of the (tiny) CAR army, becoming its chief in the early 1960s. This was mainly because he was a cousin of the president, David Dacko.

Tensions arose between Dacko and Bokassa, and on the first day of 1966, Bokassa seized power. He dissolved the National Assembly, and decided to introduce some, ah, rather unique laws of his own. He dealt with the scourge of unemployment in a particularly creative way: everyone from 18-55 had to provide proof that they had a job, or they were fined and imprisoned.

Bokassa's sadistic streak began to emerge. One rival, Banza, had his flesh carved up and his spine smashed, after being found guilty of treason. The evidence is that Bokassa committed at least some of the violence against this man, possibly with the knife he had recently used to stir his coffee.

Bokassa believed in meritocratic promotion, and, being well aware of his own incredible talent, made the difficult and bold decision to promote himself to the rank of general, and president-for-life.

In the mid-70s, Bokassa met the almost-equally dotty Colonel Gaddafi, and was so tkaen that he promptly converted to Islam, taking the name Salah Eddine Ahmed Bokassa. A few months later, he promptly recanted his faith and became a Catholic again. This had nothing to do with Gaddafi refusing to cough up some cash he had promised him.

In 1976, Bokassa lost the plot completely, and declared the CAR a monarchy, now to be known as the Central African Empire. This mighty nation required a selfless monarch to rule it, and so Bokass again took the tough road, and named himself Emperor; or rather, "Emperor of Central Africa by the will of the Central African people, united within the national political party, the MESAN". His coronation was a lavish and pomp-filled affair, involving the presentation to himself of 80 Mercedes, and cost $22 million. This consumed 1/3 of CAR's budget for that year, and all of its overseas aid. Kevin Rudd would have been impressed.

Bokassa's rule became ever more strict, with regular accusations of torture and repression. He is alleged to have beaten many of the regime's victims himself. Things came to a head in 1979, when 100 schoolkids were killed during protests against wearing state-imposed uniforms (made and sold at a very high price by one of Bokassa's wives). Bokassa apparently caned some of them to death himself. Even the French, who had tolerated him for over a decade, now left his side. A team of French commandos assisted David Dacko to stage a coup against the Emperor, and the CAE became the CAR once more.

On his return from exile (in France, of course), Bokassa was arrested and tried for embezzlement, treason, murder, and cannibalism. He was acquitted of the last charge, and sentenced to death, soon commuted to life. He was released in 1993, and died three years later, claiming to be the 13 Apostle, and leaving behind 17 wives and 50 kids. Wow.

Bokassa was undoubtedly a corrupt and brutal man. But was he a cannibal?

Apparently these rumours got started when Paris Match magazine published photos, soon after the school protests, allegedly showing fridges containing the bodies of children. The implication was that the fridges belonged to Bokassa, and he kept the bodies for a spot of afternoon snacking. Bokassa always said that the photos were of the refrigerators at the morgue. After he was toppled, investigators checked his fridges. Apparently, no humans (or human bits) inside them.

There were also stories of Bokassa feeding the bodies of his victims to the crocs and lions on his personal estate. The lake was drained after his downfall, and some bones found, but not enough to provide conclusive evidence of ritual croc-feeding.

One of Bokassa's many sons has spoken out against the rumours about his father: his explanation is that 'when you don't like your dog, you declare that it has rabies'. So was Bokassa innocent? Did all those people who put their trust in him thanks to his loyal anticommunism, simply make up the allegations to justify his overthrow?

It seems the answer is...maybe. There is no compelling evidence that the Mad Monarch was ever seen eating human flesh. Sure, he probably killed lots of people, but ate them? I doubt it. The cannibalism charges didn't stick during his seven-month trial, either, as no credible witnesses came forward. The consensus seems to be that the claims were part of a smear campaign to rally French support for his overthrow - a bit like Saddam's 'human mincing machine'. Bokassa may well have encouraged the rumours while he was in power, as it kept people in fear of what he was capable of.

But without a doubt, Bokassa was as mad as pants. Whatever happened to all the crazy dictators, anyway? Is it only Kim and Muammar left?

Flying the Coup

Ah, Africa. Another day, another illegal seizure of power. The news is just coming through that there has been a coup in Mauritania, with the President taken hostage and whisked away to places unknown by the country's leading generals. The news has jarred me a little, seeing as I was in Mauritania a little over a year ago, and I did take quite a shine to this nation of 3 million people and Allah-knows how many camels. Despite being a largely unpopulated expanse of Saharan sand, the country has its fair share of political problems, most stemming from its position on the fault-line between Arab- and sub-Saharan Africa, its recent embrace of fundamentalist Islamic causes, and its sad history as a French colony.

I wish les Maures all the best, and I hope nobody gets hurt in this calamity. Doubtless the dust (or sand) will settle, and the long-suffering population will find themselves under the control of yet another corrupt and unelected leader, and simply get on with the job of surviving. Then, a few years down the track, there will be a push for greater democracy, followed by some flawed elections, then a period of misrule by the new government, and then, to correct the balance...another coup.

Which brings me to my topic for today - coups in Africa. What a stereotype. They have become so cliched in that continent, that now, whenever I see the word 'coup', I instantly presume that it has happened in one of Africa's 53 nations. (Quick digression - why do the French have a word for coup, and we don't, having to use theirs? And why do we use the Spanish word for junta? Surely we can come up with some English alternatives? Suggestions, please...)

Military takeovers do seem to happen a lot in Africa. Or, at least, most people think they do. I am guilty of such presumption, and I was in Africa for ten months last year. I travelled through 20 countries, and didn't see one coup. Admittedly, there was a contested election in Kenya a few months after I was there, but no direct throwing-over of any ruling parties.

So what are the stats? Well, they're actually pretty interesting.

• From 1960 until 2001, there were 191 attempted coups in Africa, or roughly 5 annually. 82 were successful, or about 2 per year. That means each country in Africa has experienced roughly 1.5 coups in the past 40 years. The success rate of coups has declined since the 1960s, but is still at around 40%.
• Europe has had the fewest coups - 18 between 1946-2006, or roughly one every three years. All of those coups were in just 8 countries. Now, the fun part - see if you can name them!
• The Americas was by far the most coup-prone region, in the 1940s and 1950s.
• The five (confirmed) coups since 2000 have been in - Fiji (twice), the Solomons, Thailand, and the Philippines. So it looks like our backyard is the new place to put on a putsch!
• Coups tend to happen where they have happened before - 78% of countries that experienced a coup, actually experienced more than one.
• Sub-Saharan Africa alone has accounted for 44% of the world's coups since 1946. Add on North Africa and the figure shoots up to 55% or so.
• There are now roughly 6 coup attempts worldwide every year (with four of those in Africa). In the 1970s, the world average was 13.
  
• Only three countries in sub-Saharan Africa have never had a coup - and two of them are island nations away from the mainland (Cape Verde, Mauritius, and Botswana)
  
• The world's most coup-prone country? Bolivia, with 22 coups since 1946. The runners-up are Syria (20), Sudan (18), Nigeria (15), Iraq (15) Comoros (13, including three in one year), Benin (12), and Mauritania (12). Well, maybe we should put Mauritania up into joint 6th place now...

So it seems that Africa does get a lot of coups. It has a quarter of the world's nations, most of them independent only since the 1960s, yet it accounts for over half the coups since the 1940s. And even though it is not Number One, it still has 5 nations in the Top Eight.

And why does it happen so much in Africa? Well, there's a topic for another blog...