ABSTRACT
Regionalism was marked, individual fighters naturally being inclined to protect their home areas far more than other parts of their putative nations. Force was a major basis for changing government personnel; the military was liable to fission along lines of ethnicity, regionalism, or other ascriptive characteristics; the removal or retirement of one segment of the armed forces from the political arena had little consequence for other segments. The role of regional caudillos, able to seize power on the basis of locally-recruited armies, and the late 19th century prevalence of "militarism," marked a system of "oligarchical" praetorianism. By the mid 20th century, however, most had moved into "radical" praetorianism. There is little history of "oligarchical" praetorianism, West African states having moved, fairly soon after independence, toward "radical" and potentially "mass" praetorianism. The states of Latin America, almost without exception, won independence through armed revolt; the states of Africa, almost without exception, gained self-government through constitutional negotiation.
