How authoritarian power turns its own backers into targets in Burkina Faso
The history of authoritarian regimes is marked by a paradox as old as power itself: the tools of repression created to silence opponents almost always end up being turned against those who once wielded them. Burkina Faso is now witnessing this dynamic under Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s leadership, where the once-loyal allies of the transitional government find themselves increasingly under fire.
Over the past months, a pattern has emerged arbitrary arrests, forced disappearances reported by rights groups, smear campaigns, intimidating summons, media restrictions, and requisitions of citizens in the name of the war effort that no longer targets only traditional critics. Former supporters, including Muslim community leaders, civil society figures, commentators, influencers, and opinion-makers who once championed the transition, now face the consequences of a system where loyalty is no longer a shield.
From allies to suspects: the shifting ground of loyalty
The erosion of protections for former regime backers is not a series of isolated incidents but a reflection of a deeper systemic shift. As power consolidates control, shrinks spaces for dissent, and equates criticism with threats to the state, the line between ally and adversary blurs. In this environment, past allegiance counts for little; unconditional obedience is the new standard.
Loyalty as a moving target in a system without checks
Since assuming office, Captain Traoré has built legitimacy on a rhetoric of sovereignty, patriotism, and security. This narrative, amplified by a network of online supporters, frames any opposition as a destabilization plot orchestrated by foreign powers, political rivals, or so-called “enemies of the nation.”
Within this framework, many public figures once defended the government’s every move. Arbitrary detentions were justified as security imperatives. Disappearances of critics were downplayed. Media closures were hailed as acts of sovereignty. Requisitions of journalists, lawyers, judges, or politicians were sometimes applauded as part of the national mobilization against terrorism.
Over time, this normalization of exception has reshaped public debate. Nuance has vanished, replaced by a binary logic: uncritical support for Ibrahim Traoré or immediate labeling as an accomplice of the enemy. In such a climate, dissent is no longer seen as a democratic right but as a political betrayal.
Yet this strategy carries a high cost. When power demands absolute allegiance, even the slightest hesitation is treated as defiance. Yesterday’s allies become today’s suspects.
The rise of personalized power and the spread of suspicion
One of the defining features of Burkina Faso’s transition is the growing personalization of power around Captain Traoré. Policy debates increasingly give way to defense of his personal authority. Questioning a government decision is often interpreted as an attack on his leadership itself.
This personalization fuels a permanent climate of suspicion. As security challenges persist, the search for internal scapegoats intensifies. Military failures, repeated terrorist attacks, economic strains, social tensions, and international criticism feed a narrative in which difficulties stem not from policy choices but from supposed conspiracies.
This dynamic follows a familiar pattern in authoritarian systems: the circle of suspects expands relentlessly. First targeted are political opponents. Then come independent journalists, human rights defenders, judges, academics, religious leaders and finally, former allies whose influence is deemed too great or insufficiently aligned with the official line.
In a system where loyalty must be constantly proven, no one can be certain of remaining on the right side of power.
Fear as a tool of governance
The frequent use of highly publicized arrests, public summons, online smear campaigns, threats of requisition, or administrative sanctions sends a clear message not just to individuals, but to society as a whole.
Each detention serves as a warning. Each unexplained disappearance fuels fear. Each summons reinforces the idea that no one is beyond reach. Each dramatic requisition signals that coercive measures can be applied to anyone deemed troublesome.
This strategy fosters self-censorship. Intellectuals hesitate before publishing. Journalists scale back investigations. Religious leaders soften their sermons. Citizens avoid public debate. A society governed by fear loses its capacity to innovate, correct mistakes, and build collective solutions.
The hollowing out of institutional checks
This trend is especially concerning in a context where key oversight mechanisms are weakening.
Judicial independence is questioned when legal procedures appear to serve political ends rather than strict justice. Independent media face suspensions or restrictions that limit pluralism. Civil society organizations operate in an increasingly constrained environment. Political parties see their activities tightly restricted under transition rules.
When no institution can effectively challenge executive action, citizen safeguards erode. Power is no longer constrained by law but by the will of those in charge.
A universal lesson in political power
Burkina Faso is not alone in this predicament. History shows that regimes built on concentrated power often follow a similar arc.
Revolutionaries eliminate former comrades. Military leaders grow suspicious of their own officers. Political movements eventually sideline their founders. Ideologues are accused of betrayal.
This pattern stems from a simple logic: when loyalty to a leader becomes the primary criterion for survival, no level of devotion is ever enough. The search for absolute purity leads to purges, exclusions, and accusations.
Fundamental rights are not privileges
This evolution underscores a vital truth: public freedoms cannot be defended only when they benefit one’s own side.
The right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, press freedom, the presumption of innocence, protection from arbitrary detention or forced disappearance are not rewards granted to loyal citizens. They are universal guarantees meant to protect everyone from state abuses.
Cheering the arbitrary arrest of an opponent is to accept the principle of arbitrariness itself. Once this logic takes hold, it can be applied to anyone. Injustice does not change its nature depending on the victim’s identity.
Many of those who once stood by Ibrahim Traoré believed their proximity to power would shield them. In authoritarian systems, loyalty is never a contract; it is a precarious relationship, constantly reassessed in the name of shifting interests.
A security crisis that cannot justify all excesses
Burkina Faso faces a real terrorist threat that demands a strong state response. This reality is undeniable.
Yet the effectiveness of counterinsurgency efforts is not measured solely by the volume of coercive measures. It also depends on trust between citizens and institutions.
When people fear arbitrary state actions more than they trust protection from the state, that trust erodes. History shows that no insurgency can be defeated sustainably if institutions lose credibility with those they are meant to protect. Security and the rule of law are not opposing goals; they are complementary. A state that fights terrorism while respecting legal norms strengthens its legitimacy. Conversely, when emergency measures become permanent, the fight against the enemy risks becoming a justification for total control over society.
The system that consumes its own supporters
The difficulties now faced by figures once loyal to the regime highlight a broader political reality: in a system where institutions are weak and power relies on fear, no one is permanently safe.
Today’s allies can become tomorrow’s suspects. The most fervent defenders may be accused of insufficient loyalty. Communication allies can be sidelined and replaced. Religious figures may be called to order if their messages diverge from the official line. The gardener ends up watering himself.
But beyond individual fates, it is society as a whole that bears the cost. When a regime extends mistrust even to its own supporters, it reveals that the problem lies not in individuals, but in the very structure of the political system. The true protection of a nation rests not on proximity to the head of state or ideological alignment, but on strong institutions, an independent judiciary, a free press, and laws applied equally to all. Only within this framework can the fight against security challenges preserve both state authority and citizen freedoms.
