Abstract: * Military acceptance of civilian authority remains a missing piece of Africa's democratic transition puzzle.* While often perceived as an unwanted restriction on the purview of the security sector, the doctrine of democratic civilian control of the military boosts the legitimacy, capabilities, and performance of the armed forces.* The practical realization of this doctrine requires Africa's parliaments to assert and exercise more robust control and oversight of the security sector.HIGHLIGHTSWar is too important to be left to the generals.- Georges Clemenceau, former prime minister of FranceIt is a difficult period for everybody, but we believe that it is a political thing. We are not politicians. We are military professionals and we are determined to remain so. Nobody, no matter what, no matter the effort, will drag us into it.- Nigerian Army Chief of Staff Lieutenant General Abdurrahman Dambazzau in May 2010 shortly after the office and authorities of the Nigerian presidency were transferred to Vice President Goodluck Jonathan by the National Assembly following the death of President Umani Yar'AduaA spate of military coups from 2008 to 2010 in Mauritania, Guinea, Niger, and Madagascar raised the specter of a return to military rule in Africa. While the subsequent resumption of civilian government in Guinea and Niger has reduced these concerns, evidence of military influence in politics remains widespread across the continent. This is prominently in view in Egypt where, in the midst of political transition, the military is attempting to maintain a privileged role for itself despite the widespread demands for genuine democratic reform.In Cote d'Ivoire, Togo, Guinea Bissau, Ethiopia, the Central African Republic, Chad, Sudan, Angola, Rwanda, and many other African states, democratization or the consolidation of political reforms has been severely inhibited by armed forces that regularly intervene in political and economic matters. In Uganda, for instance, the military is permitted to select 10 officers to serve as members of parliament. In some cases, the armed forces operate autonomously and even maintain commercial interests outside the military budget. In Rwanda, the military grows, buys, processes, and exports commercial crops through a military-owned company. ' Military officers in Angola participate in contract negotiations with foreign companies, sit on corporate boards, and are majority shareholders in telecommunications firms.2Such practices are not only counterproductive to democratic governance, but also undermine stability, economic development, and even the interests of the militaries themselves. In cases where militaries have assumed total control over government, the results have usually been disastrous. Annual economic growth rates in Nigeria and Mali, for example, have been on average a full 3 percentage points lower during periods of military versus civilian rule. While lauded for their discipline and quick decisionmaking, militaries have little background in job creation, macroeconomic policy, public health, or the many other complex challenges of governing. More generally, military decisionmaking is rigidly hierarchical and beyond appeal, whereas in the public domain, policy implementation tends to be more effective when built through a consultative, transparent, and deliberative process.Beyond the blunt military putsch, increasingly prevalent and sinister developments in Africa are the emergence of "democratic" and "creeping" coups. In the former, a military coup is staged, followed by a tactical withdrawal to hold elections that are "won" by a recently retired military officer - to the accolades of both regional and international organizations. Such was the case following the 2008 coup in Mauritania by General Mohamed OuId Abdel Aziz. In creeping coups, civilian leaders will slowly erode the powers and authorities of legislatures, judiciaries, civil society groups, and other potential sources of opposition. …