A-Infos (en) Spaine, Regeneration: Burkina Faso: Revolution, Authoritarianism, and the Crisis of African Emancipation Politics By LIZA (ca, de, it, pt, tr)[machine translation]

There was a time when Robert Mugabe stood as the emblematic figure of 
African liberation. Raised fists, Pan-Africanist banners, and chants of 
self-rule marked Zimbabwe's emergence from white settler colonialism. 
Mugabe, like many of his generation, represented the victory of the 
oppressed against imperial domination. But history, with its merciless 
clarity, would later mark him not only as a liberator but as an 
authoritarian. His initial heroism morphed into repression, corruption, 
and the stifling of dissent.

This trajectory is not unique to Mugabe, nor to Zimbabwe. Across the 
African continent, a grim pattern is repeating itself: liberation 
movements, once anchored in popular struggle and dreams of 
self-determination, are transformed into bureaucratic, militarized, and 
often repressive regimes.

Robert Mugabe led Zimbabwe after its liberation, but became its oppressor.
Today, a new face of the revolution is emerging in Burkina Faso under 
the young and charismatic leadership of Captain Ibrahim Traoré. His 
image is modeled on Thomas Sankara, evoking the anti-imperialist spirit 
of the 1980s, and his language is forceful:

This is not a democracy. This is a revolution.

But what kind of revolution scorns democracy? How should we interpret 
another seizure of power by men in uniform claiming to act in the name 
of the people? If history is to be our teacher, then we must ask: can a 
revolution built on authoritarian foundations bring about true 
liberation? Or are we merely witnessing the repetition of another tragic 
cycle in which the people are always betrayed?

To answer this, anarchist theory offers a sober and necessary critique, 
particularly with the principle of " prefiguration ." In general terms, 
this means that the future society we desire is literally shaped by what 
we do today. Therefore, the means to transform society and achieve 
liberation must reflect the liberated society we seek to build. 
Dictatorship in the name of the people is not a contradiction; it is a 
betrayal.

The paradox of African liberation
In 1980, Mugabe took the reins of an independent Zimbabwe amidst 
euphoria. A fierce critic of South African apartheid and a bastion of 
African nationalism, Mugabe embodied the hopes of a continent still 
shaking off its colonial shackles. His government expanded access to 
education and healthcare, undertook land redistribution (albeit slowly 
at first), and positioned Zimbabwe as a regional powerhouse.

Yet beneath the surface of national pride, the seeds of authoritarianism 
were brewing. The Gukurahundi massacres in Matabeleland, a targeted 
state violence that left thousands dead, were the first major crack in 
the facade. By the 1990s and 2000s, the promise had faded. Economic 
mismanagement, systematic attacks on the opposition, the use of war 
veterans as agents of repression, and rigged elections turned Zimbabwe 
into a warning to the region. Mugabe had become what he once fought 
against: a ruler deaf to the cries of his people.

What went wrong? The problem wasn't just Mugabe's personality or age, 
but a structural one: a centralized, hierarchical, and militarized 
policy that concentrated power in the hands of a few. The masses, once 
mobilized for liberation, were reduced to spectators of state-directed 
nationalism. The logic of domination, inherited from colonialism, 
remained intact.

The African continent is littered with liberation leaders who later 
degenerated into authoritarian rulers. In the Democratic Republic of the 
Congo, Laurent-Désiré Kabila came to power after deposing the infamous 
Mobutu Sese Seko. Hailed as a reformer, he quickly silenced dissent, 
suspended democratic institutions, and entrenched clientelism.

In Eritrea, Isaias Afwerki led the Eritrean People's Liberation Front 
(EPLF) to independence from Ethiopia in 1993; since then, the government 
has abolished elections, outlawed dissent, and turned the country into a 
prison state. In Uganda, Yoweri Museveni, once a progressive voice with 
an ambitious reform agenda who came to power in 1986 after a guerrilla 
war, promising to end the dictatorship and restore democracy, has clung 
to power for decades, suppressing the opposition and manipulating 
constitutional term limits.

What unites these cases is not simply the betrayal of initial ideals, 
but the very structure of revolutionary movements: the domination of 
military actors, the centralization of decision-making, and the 
elimination of democratic input from the bottom up. Liberation became a 
state project, not a popular movement. The result was not freedom, but 
domination by another set of elites.

Ibrahim Traoré and the Burkinabe moment
It is in this historical context that we must understand the rise of 
Ibrahim Traoré in Burkina Faso. In September 2022, Traoré seized power 
from another military officer, citing the government's failure to 
contain jihadist violence and its persistent ties to French neocolonial 
interests. Young, energetic, and armed with pan-Africanist rhetoric, 
Traoré has been embraced by many in Africa as a new kind of 
revolutionary. His speeches denounce imperialism, his stance rejects 
Western control, and his persona draws on the Sankarist legacy.

However, there are reasons to be deeply cautious. Traoré has suspended 
the Constitution, dissolved the National Assembly, and indefinitely 
postponed the elections. Civil society participation is strictly 
controlled. Criticism is increasingly silenced under the banner of 
national unity. Most revealingly, Traoré himself has declared that this 
is not a democracy, but a revolution.

Herein lies the central contradiction. A revolution that excludes 
participatory, horizontal, and people-led democracy is not a revolution 
of liberation, but of substitution . The people are once again 
marginalized, replaced by uniforms and orders.

The Alternative: Prefiguration and the Case of Nestor Makhno
So one must ask whether a democratic revolution is even possible, and if 
so, can we point to an example? The example must be historically 
accurate and must also reject the "the end justifies the means" logic 
that has plagued so many revolutionary movements.

The example should embody the concept of prefiguration, developing today 
the kinds of ideas and social structures that reflect the tomorrow we 
desire. There was a man named Nestor Makhno, who led the Ukrainian 
Revolutionary Insurgent Army in the early 20th century. Operating during 
the Russian Civil War, Makhno led a peasant movement that resisted both 
the White counterrevolution and the authoritarian Bolsheviks. Central to 
the Makhnovist approach was the creation of workers' and peasants' 
councils, assemblies where decisions were made collectively and leaders 
were subject to immediate recall. The army itself functioned 
democratically, with elected commanders and decisions made in open 
discussion.

Makhno's movement wasn't perfect, but it represented a rare experiment 
in what a truly self-managed, bottom-up revolution could look like. Its 
main lesson was that true freedom is impossible without democratic 
participation at all levels of the struggle. Militarized command 
structures cannot give rise to emancipatory societies; instead, they 
reproduce the hierarchies they claim to oppose.

If African revolutions want to avoid the fate of betrayal, they must 
reject the authoritarian path. This means dismantling the idea that a 
small revolutionary elite or a military junta can deliver freedom in the 
name of the people. The people must deliver it to themselves.

This requires building structures of direct democracy, participatory 
budgeting, local councils, community assemblies, and federations of 
self-organized movements. It means breaking both with Western liberal 
democracy, with its elite-controlled institutions, and with nationalist 
authoritarianism, with its strongmen and military decrees.

It means recognizing that a revolution that begins by silencing voices 
will end up crushing them . In Burkina Faso, the revolutionary moment is 
still young. There is still time to reorient its path toward radical 
democracy instead of dictatorship with a populist face. But that will 
require more than speeches; it will require empowering the people not 
just in rhetoric, but in practice.

History has been a graveyard of failed liberations. But it doesn't have 
to be this way. If we take seriously the anarchist principle that means 
must reflect ends, we can begin to imagine a politics that doesn't 
reproduce hierarchies, but dismantles them. A politics that isn't merely 
anti-imperialist, but anti-authoritarian. A revolution that isn't a 
replacement of rulers, but the abolition of government itself.

This article is in no way opposed to Burkina Faso's 
anti-imperialist/anti-colonial stance, nor is it a personal criticism of 
the Captain. Rather, it advocates for all progressive forces to 
sincerely reflect on the type of liberation we want on the continent. 
Liberation cannot be delivered from above. It must be built from below, 
and it must begin now.

Leroy Maisiri is a researcher and educator focusing on labor, social 
movements, and emancipatory politics in Southern Africa, with teaching 
experience and publications in industrial economic sociology.

Translation done by

Don Diego de la Vega, member of Liza, Anarchist Platform of Madrid

Access the original text at the following link: 
https://mg.co.za/thought-leader/2025-05-08-burkina-faso-revolution-authoritarianism-and-the-crisis-of-african-emancipation-politics/

https://regeneracionlibertaria.org/2025/09/04/burkina-faso-revolucion-autoritarismo-y-crisis-de-la-politica-de-emancipacion-africana/
_________________________________________
A - I N F O S  N E W S  S E R V I C E
By, For, and About Anarchists
Send news reports to A-infos-en mailing list
A-infos-en@ainfos.ca
Subscribe/Unsubscribe https://ainfos.ca/mailman/listinfo/a-infos-en
Archive: http://ainfos.ca/en