Reflections from Burkina Faso

Many of us followed the political protests that led to the military coup d’état in Burkina Faso following President Compaoré’s decision to change the constitution to allow him another term in office.  Some agreed with Ambassador Johnnie Carson, who said “this is manipulating and subverting the constitution” and “an affront to democracy and to the rights of their own people.” Others, like Simon Allison, cautioned against what he called “the excitement and romance of Burkina Faso’s popular revolution as revolutions solve nothing on their own, it’s what comes next that really counts.”  As we in the field of CR continue to follow the situation in post-Compaoré’s Burkina Faso, we too can reflect on Burkina Faso’s revolution and wonder whether violent change is good for unity, peace, and democracy, and whether such change should be hailed or prescribed for other African countries.

Two days of violent uprisings resulted in the deaths of several people, the destruction of government buildings, and the ousting of President Blaise Compaoré in October 2014.  With Compaoré’s flight to Cote d’Ivoire, the military quickly assumed power in Burkina Faso in order to maintain order. Talks soon took place in an effort to have the military allow civilians to lead a one-year transitional government while long terms plans were made to return to constitutional rule.  ECOWAS representatives and three presidents: John Dramani Mahama of Ghana, Jonathan Goodluck of Nigeria, and Macky Sall of Senegal, and the Africa Union representative Mohamed Ould Abdel Azizi of Mauritania, called for a one-year period civilian-led government.  The United Nations and some western countries also backed this civilian headed transition as the best way forward for the country.  The final proposal that was put together by civil society groups led to a successful meeting where military leaders joined 23 electoral college representatives to name Mr. Michel Kafando as the new interim president, whose mandate started immediately and would end in November 2015.  What was impressive was that the group met on a Sunday and by Monday they had named Mr. Kafando, a former foreign affair’s minister and Burkina Faso’s ambassador to the UN, as the new president. What is equally impressive is that this group was comprised of political, military, religious, and traditional leaders. Lt. Col. Isaac Zida was also installed as the new transitional prime minister.  Together,  they were tasked to elect 25 members to the interim government and a council of 90 members who will act as legislators until November 2015.  Though this process happened smoothly, many pro-civilian groups have raised concerns about having a military Lt. Col., Isaac Zida, as prime minister. The argument, though, has been that  his presence was needed for national security purposes.

Before the meeting that named Kafando as the new president, I asked myself: Is Burkina Faso moving closer to democracy and peace following the recent changes and bouts of civil unrest? In light of previous violent revolutions in Tunisia, Egypt, Libya, and Syria, I was concerned about the following issues: What might be the likelihood that violent change would tear apart the fabric of a country rather than strengthen it? Could change brought about by violence sacrifice democracy and human rights, rather than bring them about? Would the country be led into more political chaos and despair, if the military refused to hand over the reins of power to an eminent civilian personnel? And finally, What was the likelihood that violent change could lead to a power vacuum easily filled by extremist groups or rebel soldiers, as we have seen in Mali, Libya, Syria, and Iraq?

Although I am a strong proponent and supporter of change and democracy, I have become increasingly skeptical of some analysis of the road to democracy in African countries. In as much as democracy matters, should it not matter how democracy is attained? As a scholar of conflict analysis and resolution, I wonder if the lovers and leaders of democracy can safely and successfully embark on the long journey toward the democratization process without a marathon of violence, which, I am glad, Burkina Faso has avoided thus far. Often times, the “Multi-decade Leaders,” as Ambassador Carson calls them, and military leaders are comfortable to use violence if they are challenged.

This often leads to the reactive use of violence from those clamoring for change. Violent revolutions with  high death tolls seem to have very little success continentally, as seen in Libya, Mali, and Egypt, but revolutions with fewer deaths, like Burkina Faso, seem to have better results. From a leadership for unity, peace and reconciliation perspective, would it not be more prudent and wise to consider other roads to democracy in Africa that do not involve as much violence or may involve fewer deaths? For example, would it not be better for the African Union, European Union, the USA, Canada, and other pro-democracy countries to be more pro-active than reactive? Should they not engage in practices such as building and nurturing democracy via diplomatic dialogue, pressure for leadership integrity, private and civil society pressure based on performance failure, and just institution-building and support? At the same time, these countries and institutions can help to plan a safe exit strategy for those leaders who are trapped in their postions, following the danger of the coup d’état or mob justice that might end their lives or legacy.
As building democracy and peace takes time, Burkina Faso should expect things to get tough before they get better.

The good thing we see, though, is that the unity and patriotism shown by pro change groups, especially youth, women, and traditional leaders, and some military and political leaders, for positive change becomes the foundation for a bright future.  Also, both the African Union and the United Nations threatened to impose sanctions on Burkina Faso if the military regime did not return the presidency to civilians. Canada was the first nation to withhold aid and the US also contemplated the best course of action to take. My fear was that if more sanctions were imposed, would they not have hurt most the common people struggling for democracy? As for the hypothesis that what we are seeing in Burkina Faso is the “Black Spring” much like the  “Arab Spring,”and will spread across the African continent bringing much needed change, remains to be seen.  African countries are uniquely different and each nations' path to democracy involves complex political, economic, military, external, social, and cultural contexts that differ. Perhaps the developments in Burkina Faso would usher in a shift in how nations on the continent are governed.  Leaders may actually start to govern for the people and not just a few and, perhaps, the journey toward a mature democracy in Africa would begin.