Burkina Faso is added to the list of African countries where the army’s takeover reveals a difficult reappropriation by political and military actors of the rule of law as a form of organization of society. It is even the reality of adherence to democracy as a modality of governance that must be questioned when the army becomes the main arbiter of the tensions and conflicts that emerge from common life.
From Burkina Faso and Sudan to Mali, Guinea and Chad, we have witnessed distinct crises and political divergences. But, in all these cases, the military corps has confirmed its hold on the political field, either by proclaiming itself the legitimate defender of the interests of the people, or by disqualifying law and ethics as tools for regulating social coexistence. Result: the political and social in a large majority of African countries are not totally free from military supervision.
In practice, and despite the formal adherence to democratic principles, the army remains the truly sovereign institution, as evidenced by the longevity of authoritarian regimes, the constitutional coups to run for a third term and the subordination of the constitutional legality to force of arms. However, this is a deplorable situation which takes hostage the democratic future of the continent and which accentuates the vulnerability of the populations already weakened by precariousness and insecurity. There is an urgent need to develop a national, sub-regional and continental strategy to contain the risk of lasting and chronic instability. In an increasingly fragmented world, where hegemonic struggles between the great powers are intensifying, Africa must imperatively question its collective capacity to organize itself, both politically and institutionally.
The impotence of coups
Let us remember first of all that coups d’etat cannot be a response to the inability of States to assume the prerogatives of justice, equality and security. The logic of validating and legitimizing military coups under the pretext of state failure and failure to govern is more than worn out, unproductive and above all unrealistic. The role of African armies has been sufficiently questioned through numerous academic studies and socio-political observations, and there is no evidence to date that a junta that seizes power by force and force has practical tools capable of create the social and political conditions of a capable state.
Similarly, the army, in the political history of Burkina Faso for example, played an important role in the entrenchment of an authoritarian and neo-patrimonial political culture. The incapacity of President Roch Kaboré, elected and re-elected democratically, is only the consequence of a long agony of the Burkinabe state. Although we can rightly criticize its governance strategy in terms of development policies and especially the fight against the jihadists, it is difficult to see how the army’s coup can create the social and political conditions for a capable state. We can hear the argument of those who demanded his departure, but because his power rested on legal and political legitimacy, it would have been necessary to explore and exhaust all the democratic means of protest to deal with this breach of trust. It is regrettable that the Armed Forces have brutally interrupted the democratic process begun since 2015 by putting their boots on law and politics, under the complacent gaze of political actors who nevertheless constantly chant the need for a rule of law. There is a real work of political education to be done if we want, across Africa, to promote the lasting rooting of a culture of the rule of law.
lucidity exercise
To do this, it will be necessary to begin by reassessing, at the national level, collective perceptions in relation to the meaning of the rule of law and what it implies in terms of the governance of society. Because the persistence of violence and authoritarianism as forms of political socialization is in contradiction with the ethical, legal and constitutional requirements of the democratic organization of public powers. And it will be very difficult to bring about changes at the sub-regional and continental scales if, within the borders, modes of governance persist which combine, in a contradictory logic, respect for the rule of law, an authoritarian representation of power and praetorian practices of governance.
Perhaps the ideal would be to no longer overuse references to liberal democracy and the rule of law, but to know fundamentally how a society of men and women can organize itself in such a way as to meet the existential needs human beings, if only minimally. Because, for the time being, governments, sub-regional organizations and the African Union are unable to translate politically and institutionally the demands for peace, stability, socio-economic justice and education formulated by the populations. And it is not by wielding the nationalist and pan-African fiber that we will succeed in demonstrating reasonableness by agreeing to break with modes of governance that are antinomic to the humanity of the African populations. It is also time to know what representation of the human, on the political level, we want to defend, and how from Africa we are going to contribute to the reflections on our planetary condition.