That political stability is vital for investment and development goes without saying, but it seems as though too much instability can be bad for criminal enterprises too.

The cocaine cartels that used West Africa, and Guinea-Bissau in particular, as a conduit to Europe were long accused of worsening the chaos in one of the region’s poorest and most troubled states by buying off some factions of the security forces and political leaders.

But if so, things may have gone too far.

In less than a year, Guinea-Bissau has lost President Joao Bernardo “Nino” Vieira (dead), the head of the army (dead), the head of the navy (fled), a former defence minister (dead) and a candidate to replace the slain president in the June 28 election (dead). And those are just some of the figures at the top.

Whichever of Guinea-Bissau’s leaders might have been involved in the drugs trade and which were trying to fight it, the removal of such a swathe of the leadership appears for now at least to have knocked the traffickers off balance too.

Drug smuggling through West Africa has plummeted, according to the U.N., despite the fact that its geography also makes it an ideal bridge between Latin America and Europe.

"The fact that big traffickers do not any longer have certain partners in power clearly have disrupted the routes," said Antonio Mazzitelli, regional head of the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime. "A trafficker would never bring 2 tonnes of drugs to a country where he is not sure he can operate,” he told Reuters.

Political changes in Guinea, where a junta seized power after the death of President Lansana Conte, and Ghana, where the opposition won a democratic election, also appear to have limited their use as smuggling conduits for now.

An election in Guinea-Bissau now offers a chance for a new start. With greater international support its chance of becoming a failed state could have improved.

A question for the West African countries – and for the drug traffickers – may be whether administrations that become more entrenched over time will more easily fall prey to the lure of the drug money despite the dangers.

European leaders have finally got their act together. After weeks of looking divided over how to tackle the global financial crisis, they agreed on joint measures at  emergency talks in Paris. 

Their meeting followed talks in Washington at the weekend involving G7 finance ministers and officials from the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank at which governments pledged to support the financial system. U.S. President George W. Bush said he was confident the world’s major economies could overcome the challenges.

But is it enough to stave off the crisis? 

Some equity investors appeared to be comforted. The pan-European FTSEurofirst rose on Monday, U.S. stock futures went up and Asian shares outside Japan, which was closed for a holiday, made gains. 

Just a few days ago, the IMF warned of the danger of financial meltdown but its chief, Dominique Strauss-Kahn said on Monday the worst of the crisis was possibly over. 

Many newspapers were cautious. The Toronto Globe and Mail saw hope in the fact that the world’s financial  leaders have started setting aside their differences but said some market participants could be disappointed by the lack of specifics. Floyd Norris wrote in The New York Times that there was no assurance that credit would flow when markets reopen this week.

The Economist said the “dithering” was over but  some problems remained.

Commentators and politicians are united in saying that staying together holds the key to success and that the consequences could be dire if unity does not hold. 

Commentator Will Hutton, writing in The Observer, said: ”I don’t know whether politicians and their advisers can move as quickly as they need in so many areas and collaborate across so many countries to restore stability.”

He added:  ”Without collaboration and leadership, we face disaster.”

“People look at headlines from two or three countries and forget there are 55 countries in Africa and in most of them life is normal.”

That is what Mo Ibrahim, a Sudanese-born telecoms entrepreneur and one of Africa’s best known business leaders, told Reuters at the launch of the 2008 Index of African Governance by his foundation.

The index showed that governance had improved in almost two-thirds of the countries in sub-Saharan Africa since the 2007 index.

It follows weeks after the Transparency International corruption perceptions index, on which African states featured heavily among the worst offenders.

The Ibrahim Index is based on criteria including corruption, economic stability, security, rights, laws, elections, infrastructure, poverty and health.

The winner - Mauritius - will not be much of a surprise and nor will the fact that Somalia was in last place. Liberia had shown the most improvement.

Despite the dramatic headlines from Africa’s crisis zones, an overall improvement in governance is one of the reasons cited by investors for unprecedented financial flows to Africa in recent years.

“Africa is open for business,” Ibrahim told us. “Investors should look at our growth. And with the global financial situation the way it is, perhaps their money is safer in Africa than in the U.S.”

But how deep does any improvement in governance go? How long might it last? Who is doing well and who should do more? What do you think?