Guarding the Guardians asks how and whether African militaries will permit democratic consolidation. Mathurin Houngnikpo believes that khaki consent is necessary, but that civilians and militaries must make ‘complex compromises’. Houngnikpo (Chair of Civil–Military Relations at the United States' Africa Center for Strategic Studies) lists a number of normative suggestions, but appears pessimistic about democratic civil–military relations occurring within this generation. The first half of the book revisits the African military literature of the 1960s–1980s (including the Pye-Shils' ‘military-as-moderniser’ school). Civilian rule has been as bad as military rule, but the former at least allows for some chance of democratic change. This section describes pre-colonial civil–military relations, the growing holistic view that ‘security’ includes both regime and human security, and the notion that the ‘security sector’ includes much more than the military (presidential guards, state-supported militias, gendarmerie and border/port police).

Commendably, Houngnikpo emphasises that civilians have a major responsibility for democratic civil–military relations. Domestic groups (mostly the state) will largely determine whether effective oversight occurs: AU strictures against coups are ineffectual, and the West can exert only limited influence. Ostensibly democratising governments must not stage ‘civilian coups’. Rather, they must exercise transparency and accountability, maintain informed oversight, and, à la Huntington, not intrude into purely military functions.

Although Guarding the Guardians is a thoughtful and well-researched book, it could have considered contemporary, country-specific, civil–military relations examples to illustrate ‘complex compromises’. Should African countries offer amnesty to officers of l'ancien regime? Doing so may buy khaki compliance but may also reinforce cultures of impunity. Should militaries promote/reflect the state's democratic agenda by being more socially inclusive (for example, in terms of gender), or by deploying their resources for civilian purposes (construction, education, or medical)? Such actions could undermine military esprit de corps and readiness, and insinuate the forces into civilian governance. Future writing should include the views of African officers regarding the compromises involved in civil–military relations, as well as suggestions for greater judicial and legislative influence.

Democratic control of the security forces requires governments to balance differing sets of values and priorities. For that reason, civil–military relations remains a process for every country. By raising important questions and offering sensible recommendations, Houngnikpo advances the current civil–military relations literature.