During his four years as president, Nicolás Maduro has faced an ever-growing political opposition and has become the focal point of near constant anti-government protests. On March 29, Venezuela’s pro-government Supreme Court ruled to dissolve the majority-opposition legislature and absorb its powers. Though the high court softened its decision after an intense backlash, anti-government protesters continue to flock to the streets of Caracas and cities across Venezuela in opposition to what they are calling a coup d’état. Although the opposition is growing louder, larger, and more determined, Maduro is intent on keeping power at all costs. The current conditions have been long in the making and it is unclear what lies ahead.

Hugo Chávez and Oil

By most estimates, Venezuela has the largest discovered crude oil reserves in the world. For decades, the Venezuelan economy has depended on the exports of this single commodity. When Hugo Chávez rose to power in 1998, world oil prices were high and the economy was booming. Chávez used the profits generated by Venezuela’s nationalized oil industry to build a country with his socialist vision. Under his rule, social spending increased and many felt that Chávez more than lived up to his promises of a socialist society. Chávez famously launched an initiative in 2011 to provide over one million houses to families in need.

In spite of his promise to defy capitalism and imperialism, Chávez’s undiversified and commodity-based economy was always at the mercy of international markets. After hitting an all time high in July 2008, oil prices crashed in January 2009, putting the Venezuelan economy under immense pressure. However, although Chávez’s approval rating did suffer slightly, he retained popular support and his mandate was rarely in doubt. In tough times, Chávez’s cult of personality guaranteed him a certain amount of unconditional support and there was no one who could mount a realistic challenge against him.

Maduro’s Rise

Nicolás Maduro took over the United Socialist Party (PSUV) upon Chávez’s death in March 2013 and won a special election the following month. Maduro’s surprisingly narrow victory suggested he would never have the kind of support that his predecessor had enjoyed. Venezuela’s economy had been flagging long before Maduro took over; soaring inflation rates and a dependency on imported consumer goods had resulted in widespread shortages. However, without Chávez at the helm, Venezuelans appeared far less willing to turn a blind eye. Though Maduro promised to continue the Chávez legacy, he would never be able replace the revolutionary figure.

In January 2014, anti-government demonstrations gained traction after a violent government response to initial demonstrations caused matters to escalate. In May 2014, oil prices crashed and the situation went from bad to worse. Already struggling in the polls, Maduro’s approval rating plummeted below 25 percent. Protests continued to rage, and in March 2015, the National Assembly finally granted him permission to rule by decree.

Political Resistance

In spite of Maduro’s move to expand his power, the political resistance continued to mount. In December 2015, the opposition Democratic Unity Roundtable Party (MUD) took control of the National Assembly for the first time in more than 16 years of PSUV rule. MUD controlled 112 (67 percent) of the legislature’s 167 seats–a supermajority that granted deputies expanded powers over Maduro’s executive branch.

While Maduro initially accepted the results, the loyalist Supreme Court ruled to block three newly elected MUD lawmakers from taking office, citing electoral irregularities. The ruling, which was handed down a week before the deputies were set to meet for their first session, was seen by opposition politicians as a blatant attempt to dismantle the supermajority. The MUD-controlled National Assembly ignored the ruling and swore the deputies in. It was this act of defiance that compelled the court to dissolve the National Assembly and hand control of the country back to Maduro and the PSUV on March 29.

While the ruling effectively restored Maduro’s control over Venezuela’s three branches of government, it in no way restored his control over the country. On the day of the ruling, protestors amassed outside the court. In response to the outcry, the Supreme Court revised the contentious decision last Saturday. While it seems the Supreme Court will no longer take over the legislature’s power to enact legislation, the ruling was not reversed. The legislature has still been ruled to be in contempt of the court and may not be allowed to pass new laws. Unsurprisingly, this revision has done little to quell the opposition. Protests continue to rage and have since turned violent.

While there are signs that Maduro could lose the faith of some high-ranking PSUV members and face a challenge from inside the party, it seems unlikely the party will turn on him just yet. Maduro is intent on expanding his powers, while an ever-increasing number of Venezuelans are adamantly opposed to his leadership.

Maduro would almost certainly lose a free and fair election–scheduled for October 2018–but any number of things could happen before then. Long-standing tensions have reached a point where some fear a civil war may be imminent.

Under Chávez, the PSUV dominated every aspect of Venezuelan politics. While critics often called Chávez a dictator and decried his authoritarian style, the popular support for the socialist leader was undeniable. Maduro, the heir to Chávez’s throne, does not enjoy this level of popularity. Maduro is simply incapable of filling the seat Chávez left behind. Many of the systemic issues that plague Venezuela pre-date Maduro’s presidency, but his approach to the role has only aggravated an already disgruntled, disenfranchised, and disenchanted public.

Callum Cleary

Callum is an editorial intern at Law Street. He is from Portland OR by way of the United Kingdom. He is a senior at American University double majoring in International Studies and Philosophy with a focus on social justice in Latin America. Contact Callum at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Political Turmoil in Venezuela: What’s Next? appeared first on Law Street.

On the night of Friday, July 15, while President Recep Erdogan was on vacation, members of the Turkish military attempted a coup. The effort involved members of several branches of the Turkish military and was only thwarted after the President took to social media to call on the people to rise up and protect the existing government. Although Erdogan was able to fend off a challenge to his rule, the history behind the coup attempt and Turkey’s significance both in the fight against ISIS and in Europe’s refugee crisis cannot be understated.

Read on to find out more about the coup itself and what it would mean if such an attempt was successful both in Turkey and throughout the region.

The Coup in Turkey

The coup started late on a Friday night when tanks dispersed into the Turkish capital of Ankara, passage to Europe along the Bosporus Bridge was blocked, and soldiers took to Taksim Square in Istanbul claiming the elected government was illegitimate and that the military has taken over the country.

However, before the military could completely seize power, President Erdogan did an interview with CNN Turk. Using Facetime, President Erdogan urged citizens to stand up to the coup and protest. This proved to be a catalyst for action, as many Turkish people took to the streets and faced down the military. By the time Erdogan landed in the early morning hours of Saturday, the coup was over and his administration was back in power. At the end of the incident, nearly 300 people were killed and an additional 1,400 were injured.

The video below details the failed coup:

Some History

The recent attempted coup was far from the first effort by the military to exert control over the country. Since 1960, three military coups have taken place and a fourth movement led by the military effectively forced out a sitting government in 1997. Although military coups take on the image of power-mad army officers bursting into cabinet offices, Turkey’s case is slightly different.

That is because the Turkish military has long served, at least in its own eyes, as the protector of the modern state of Turkey, which was founded by Mustafa Kemal Ataturk in 1909. As this earlier Law Street article on the history of the Turkey illustrates, the military has played a crucial role in the development of the modern Turkish state. Chief among the army’s self-imposed responsibilities is keeping the country secular and free of the religious sentiment that has gripped many Middle Eastern countries to its south.

The following video looks at the history of coups in Turkey:

In the most recent coup attempt, the army officers in charge seemed to be rebelling against President Erdogan himself. Erdogan has won a series of elections each time consolidating more power for himself while neutralizing and even arresting his opponents.

While President Erdogan himself has blamed Fethullah Gulen, his former ally who now lives in Pennsylvania, Erdogan’s opponents cite his disregard for laws and the constitution. Erdogan is now in the process of seeking Gulen’s extradition from the United States, but the U.S. government has remained relatively resistant to his request.

The Aftermath

In the aftermath of the failed coup, many outside observers worried and some have even warned President Erdogan about using it as a justification to eliminate his rivals and further consolidate his power. These fears quickly seemed to be coming to fruition with Erdogan’s crackdown to oust from the government and military people he suspects were involved in the coup attempt. It started with the military, as thousands of personnel, including over a hundred generals and admirals, were detained. After that, it spread to educators, government officials, and members of the judiciary who allegedly had ties to the coup plotters as well.

The following video looks at the aftermath of the failed coup:

President Erdogan also targeted members of the media who have been critical of him in the past. Many of these arrests have come with little or no evidence of wrongdoing. Amnesty International recently reported concerns that detainees were being beaten, tortured, and even raped while in custody.

This is hardly the image of democracy triumphing over a military dictatorship that Erdogan trumpeted after the coup failed. Following the coup, Erdogan extended a state of emergency across the country that dramatically expanded the authority of the president with little oversight from the Turkish Parliament.

A Crucial Time for the West

The reason why the outcome of Turkey’s attempted coup is so important is because Turkey is a central actor in two of the biggest events currently affecting the western world. First, there is Turkey’s role in fighting ISIS and within the larger Syrian conflict.

Turkey is currently in a particularly complicated position when it comes to Syria. While it plays a large role in facilitating U.S. airstrikes against ISIS, Turkey is fighting Kurds within its own borders. The Kurds have been central to efforts to regain territory from ISIS and Turkey’s domestic issues with the ethnic group has complicated its role in the larger conflict. Turkey has also been supporting several rebel groups that are fighting the Assad regime in Syria. So far, some have criticized Turkey’s level of engagement in the fight against ISIS, as many hoped it would take on a larger role after ISIS carried out a string of bombings in multiple Turkish cities, including of the Istanbul airport.

However, that outlook may change following the coup. Lately, Turkey has been refocusing inward, purging its own military ranks of many officers suspected in the coup. This has the negative impact of reducing Turkey’s ability to fight. So far, Turkey has been an important U.S. ally in the fight against ISIS by serving as an airbase for the United States. However, Erdogan and many Turkish officials have started to argue that the United States played a role in the recent coup attempt. If relations between the two countries begin to sour–particularly if a battle to extradite Fethullah Gulen erupts–then the U.S. efforts to fight ISIS could face significant setbacks. Lastly, Turkey is home to some of NATO’s nuclear missiles, making political instability there even more concerning.

In addition to Turkey’s role in the fight against ISIS, it plays a crucial role in the international effort to deal with the refugee crisis. Turkey is home to the largest refugee camp of Syrians in the world, with 2.5 million living there. In a deal with Europe earlier this year, Turkey promised to do its best to keep refugees in exchange for more than $3 billion in aid as well as a promise to reconsider Turkey’s candidacy for EU membership. The deal, however, was also contingent upon Turkey improving its human rights practices, which the recent crackdown will likely call into question.

Conclusion

In the aftermath of the failed coup in Turkey, chaos reigned. First, it was very unclear who actually led the coup. While it appears to have been a coordinated effort by many in the military, no central figure ever came forward to claim responsibility, which may be another reason why it failed. Some speculate that the United States may have been behind the coup, training dissidents and allowing Gulen a safe haven to denounce Erdogan’s government. Other reports suggested Erdogan himself may have been behind the poorly planned insurrection, as it gave him cover to finally purge many of his foes from the government and military.

It remains unlikely that we will know the full story behind the coup anytime soon. What is indisputable, though, is Turkey’s significance to the scope of European Union, NATO, and U.S. operations. While the United States may not agree with Erdogan’s subsequent power grab or the methods of his crackdown, he has been a strong ally for the most part. For now, it appears as though the west and Turkey will need to work together, but if instability continues or worsens that cooperation could face serious challenges.

Resources

CNN: Turkey Coup Attempt: How a Night of Death and Mayhem Unfolded

Al-Jazeera: Timeline: A History of Turkish Coups

Law Street Media: Turkey: A Country Perpetually at a Crossroads

Politico: What Caused the Turkish Coup Attempt?

RT: Turkish Prosecutor Claims CIA, FBI Trained Coup Plotters

Al-Monitor: Was Turkey’s Coup Attempt Just an Elaborate Hoax by Erdogan?

Time: Turkey’s President Is Using the Coup Attempt to Crack Down on the Media

Reuters: Turkey Dismisses Military, Shuts Media Outlets as Crackdown Deepens

BBC: Turkey Coup Attempt: Crackdown toll passes 50,000

PRI: Turkey’s Coup Failed, but it Can Still Hurt the Fight Against ISIS

Vox: Turkey’s Failed Coup Could Have Disastrous Consequences for Europe’s Migrant Crisis

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Coup That Wasn’t: Inside Turkey’s Failed Military Takeover appeared first on Law Street.

In 1990, the nation now known as Myanmar (renamed from Burma in 1989) held its first election since the 1962 coup that brought a repressive military junta to power. The elections were swept by the National League for Democracy (NLD), led by Aung San Suu Kyi. But the power transition from military to civilian rule never came and by the end of 1990 many of the major figures in the NLD, including Suu Kyi, were arrested.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted and a transition plan established in an attempt to convert Myanmar from military rule to democracy. The country held its first elections under the new constitution in 2010, which brought Thein Sein to the seat of the presidency. On November 8, 2015, general elections were once again held and the NLD and Suu Kyi were once again in the national spotlight. But will anything actually change? Read on to learn about the elections and the current situation in Myanmar.

Military Rule

Following its independence from the British Empire, Myanmar attempted to cultivate a bicameral, multiparty democracy. Elections were characterized by infighting among the political parties and general instability. In 1958, Army Chief of Staff Ne Win was tasked with establishing a caretaker government to restore order.

In 1962, Ne Win launched a coup, declaring Burma was unfit for parliamentary democracy. The constitution was suspended and the legislature was dissolved. From that point, the army established a strong grip on the government of Myanmar, a grip it still holds today. Many private areas were brought under government control, and the Burmese Way to Socialism was adopted. This new philosophy essentially fused the Marxist practices of central planning with traditional Buddhist and Nationalistic sensibilities. Under the new ideology, Myanmar became one of the most impoverished countries in the world. Ne Win would effectively rule the Union of Burma through various roles–Prime Minister, President, and head of the ruling Burma Socialist Programme Party (BSPP)–until 1988.

After the coup, the government engaged in the brutal repression of opposition and free speech. Student protests frequently occurred but were crushed by the military. A notable protest occurred in December 1974 at the funeral of U Thant, the country’s former permanent representative to the United Nations who later became the U.N. Secretary-General. The unrest culminated in the 8888 Uprising, which started on August 8, 1988. That year, Ne Win enacted a series of currency denominations, effectively eliminating many people’s life-savings. The uprising was led by university students who marched on the capital city of Rangoon. During multiple days of violence between students and security forces, an estimated 3,000 people, mostly protesters, were killed. The protests eventually led Ne Win to resign and in 1990 the country held elections, but despite that momentary progress the military maintained its control over the country.

The 1990 Election

In 1988, Aung San Suu Kyi returned to Myanmar from the United Kingdom. Heavily influenced by the movements of Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi, she helped orchestrate the anti-government rallies stressing nonviolent protest. For her roles in the protests, she would spend 15 years between 1989 and 2010 under some form of incarceration.

When the military agreed to hold open elections in 1990, Suu Kyi mobilized the National League for Democracy. The NLD swept the election claiming a projected 80 percent of available seats despite numerous efforts from the government to hamstring the opposition parties. The limitations included a ban on campaign rallies and strict rules for the media that the opposition groups could distribute to voters.

Despite the overwhelming victory of the NLD in 1990, the elections were never honored by the military government. According to Human Rights Watch,

Burma’s military government refused to recognize the result of the 1990 elections and claimed that the vote was only to form an assembly to draft a new constitution, not for a parliament. In the ensuing months, the military government arrested and imprisoned dozens of opposition parliamentarians, while scores fled Burma to seek refuge abroad.

The 1990 elections concluded with a series of arrests of multiple leaders of the opposition parties, including Suu Kyi. She was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 1991 for her efforts to bring democracy to Myanmar.

The 2008 Constitution and 2011 Transition

In 2008, the military government announced a renewed effort to bring democracy to Myanmar and open the country to the rest of the world. Since the 1962 coup, most western nations refused to trade with Myanmar, forcing the country into an unwilling dependence on China for foreign trade. In 2008, a cyclone struck Myanmar and triggered one of the worst natural disasters in the country’s history. Many argued that this event led the military government to realize the need to be a part of the larger international community.

In 2008, a new constitution was drafted, creating a bicameral elected legislature. However, the government gave itself a powerful position with the constitution. The military party was guaranteed 25 percent of the seats in both houses of the legislature (the Hluttaw). Additionally, in order for any change to the constitution to be ratified, more than 75 percent of all members of the Hluttaw must approve the change. This leaves the military with effective veto power on any proposed change to the constitution.

Elections were once again scheduled, but the NLD boycotted the elections due to a now-infamous provision in the constitution, article 59 F. Regarding limitations on who can hold the office of president, the article states that the president:

Shall he himself, one of the parents, the spouse, one of the legitimate children or their spouses not owe allegiance to a foreign power, not be subject of a foreign power or citizen of a foreign country. They shall not be persons entitled to enjoy the rights and privileges of a subject of a foreign government or citizen of a foreign country.

This effectively disqualified Suu Kyi from contention for the office of president because her husband was a British national and her children possess British passports.

The 2010 elections were subject to similar restrictions placed on the 1990 elections, much to the chagrin of independent observers. The Union Election Commission evaluated the opposition parties during the registration process and blocked several from legally running. Numerous ethnic minority groups, particularly Muslims, were disenfranchised and remain to this day ineligible to vote. Amidst rampant fraud and violence, voter turnout was low but the results were honored by the military. In 2011, Thein Sein came to power as president. In 2012, by-elections were held and the NLD participated, claiming most of the available seats, one of which was claimed by Suu Kyi herself.

The 2015 Election

Despite criticism of the constitution, which many claim contains undemocratic articles (primarily article 59 F), the government insisted that the constitution will remain in place. For the first time since 1990, the NLD participated in the general election and dominated the polls, gaining an outright majority in both houses of the Hluttaw. The government has promised a smooth transition of power and the NLD will choose next president of Myanmar. Although she is ineligible for the position, most believe that Suu Kyi will lead from parliament with the president serving as a proxy.

The major losers in the election, aside from the military party, were the ethnic opposition groups and their Mon National Party. Largely popular in the ethnic, fringe villages, the party could not compete with larger population centers that favor the NLD while multiple MNP candidates split the vote. Voter disenfranchisement was also a major factor in several regions that were key for the MNP.

Expectations

The primary question after this election is who will become the next president of Myanmar. However, the answer to this question isn’t overly important as whoever is chosen by the Hluttaw will likely just serve as Suu Kyi’s proxy. To select a president, each of the Hluttaw houses and the military will nominate a candidate. The candidates will then be voted on in a joint session of the legislature with the two losers serving as vice-presidents.

At the outset, it looked as if Speaker of the Hluttaw U Shwe Mann was the clear favorite for the office of president. Although he is a member of the military faction, Suu Kyi may support his candidacy in exchange for constitutional reform. However, Shwe Mann has since lost favor with the military, and was removed as head of the party in an August “soft-coup.” At present, there are numerous contenders for the office, though it is unclear which direction Suu Kyi and the NLD will go. Any alliance with the military party will likely be for the sole purpose of reforming the constitution.

Current president Thein Sein, who could still garner support for another term, has promised a smooth transition at a gathering of political parties in the week following the election. Both the NLD and the current ruling party are expected to hold reconciliation talks to help bring about the smooth transfer of power and begin a reform process.

Conclusion

The NLD’s convincing victory gives Suu Kyi a mandate to seek the constitutional and democratic change she has spent the last 27 years campaigning for. Despite being unable to claim the office of president for herself, she is expected to run the country by proxy from the Hluttaw. However, any change will likely be slow and gradual and a smooth transition remains difficult in light of the country’s history. The military also retains effective veto power to any proposed change in the constitution.

Myanmar still faces a variety of problems regarding its treatment of ethnic minorities, widespread impoverishment, and persistent electoral issues. While the government has promised a transition, similar promises were made in 1990 and later reneged. Time will tell if 2015 and 2016 will be any different.

Resources

Primary

Myanmar: Constitution of the Republic of the Union of Myanmar

Additional

BBC: Myanmar’s 2015 General Election Explained

BBC: Profile: Aung San Suu Kyi

CNN: November Date set for Landmark Myanmar Elections: What’s at stake?

Al Jazeera: Myanmar Promised ‘Smooth and Stable’ Transition

The Irrawaddy: Mon Parties Count their Losses after NLD Rout

The New Yorker: Can Myanmar’s New Government Control its Military?

The Huffington Post: Burma’s 8888: A Movement that Lives On

James F. Guyot: Myanmar in 1990: The Unconsummated Election

Oxford Burma Alliance: The Ne Win Years: 1962-1988

Burma Fund UN Office: Burma’s 2010 Elections: A Comprehensive Report

PBS NewsHour: Inside the Charge for Change Toward Democracy in Myanmar

Journeyman Pictures: Road to Democracy – Myanmar’s Election Struggle

Editor’s Note: This post has been updated correct U Thant’s history. Thant served as Burma’s permanent representative to the United Nations and later the U.N. Secretary-General. He was not the country’s prime minister.

Samuel Whitesell

Samuel Whitesell is a graduate of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill having studied History and Peace, War, and Defense. His interests cover international policy, diplomacy, and politics, along with some entertainment/sports. He also writes fiction on the side. Contact Samuel at Staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Advancement or Regression? The 2015 Elections in Myanmar appeared first on Law Street.

Burkina Faso, a small, land-locked country in Western Africa, is currently in the midst of a political transition that could be monumental for the region. Much like the North African nations that underwent political change during the Arab Spring, Burkina Faso is currently in the throes of political turmoil. In a country with a long history of military coups, mass protests recently forced Burkina Faso’s president to resign after holding power for 27 years.

While an interim government plans to hold elections at the end of the month, recent challenges have made the country’s transition extremely difficult. From a brief counter-coup to the relatively strong influence of the military, the country has a long way to go before its government is stable again. Read on to see exactly what is going on in Burkina Faso, how it all started, and where the conflict is likely to go next.

History of Burkina Faso

Burkina Faso, at the time called Upper Volta, achieved full independence from France in 1960 after a long period of colonial rule. Between its independence in 1960 and 1987, the country went through five separate military coups. The first coup occurred just six years after it gained its independence when the democratically elected Maurice Yaméogo was ousted by military leader Sangoulé Lamizana.

Upper Volta adopted a new constitution in 1970 giving Lamizana power until another coup, led by Saye Zerbo, removed him in 1980. Zerbo was quickly replaced by Major Jean-Baptiste Ouédraogo in 1982. Ouédraogo’s forces quickly splintered into two groups: conservative and radical. Thomas Sankara assumed control of the radical faction and usurped Ouédraogo to become the country’s leader. After coming to power in 1983, Sankara implemented a series of left-wing policies. Upper Volta was renamed Burkina Faso in 1984.

Like his predecessors, Sankara’s rule was short-lived, as he was overthrown and killed in 1987. Blaise Compaoré, an aide to Sankara, led the 1987 military coup. Deviating from the previous instability, Compaoré managed to hold power in Burkina Faso for 27 years. A new constitution was put in place in 1991 and Compaoré won in a widely criticized election. He would go on to win three more elections, in 1998, 2005, and 2010.

The video below gives a brief history of Burkina Faso starting with Compaore’s coup in 1987:

Recent Developments

Compaoré Steps Down

Given Burkina Faso’s history of coups and Compaoré’s near overthrow in 2011, it appeared likely he would step down at the end of his term in 2015. However, like many of the rulers before him, Compaoré sought to maintain his power. In October 2014, Burkina Faso’s National Assembly considered a bill to remove the term limit on the presidency, meaning that he could run for reelection the next year. This immediately led to protests, the burning of parliament, and clashes between protestors and the military, much like what happened in 2011.

Authorities eventually imposed martial law due to the violence, which included protestors taking over state-controlled media outlets and looting the president’s home. In addition to martial law, the vote to extend the term limit was dropped, yet the protests continued. In a final effort to ease tension, Compaoré dissolved his hand-picked government and promised more dialogue with the protestors.  Finally, after all the other measures failed, Compaoré resigned from the presidency after 27 years in office. After Compaoré’s resignation, the military briefly took control before a panel appointed Michael Kafando the interim president; Kafando was formerly a foreign minister and Burkina Faso’s ambassador to the United Nations.

Leading up to the events that caused Blaise Compaoré to resign, Burkina Faso was in many ways primed for change. Despite recent economic progress and a large gold reserve, Burkina Faso was one of the poorest countries in the world. In fact, the situation became so dire in 2011 that it appeared a coup was imminent, as soldiers protested unpaid housing and food allowances. That conflict was likely only avoided because of a series of concessions offered by Compaoré. When the question of extending his term limit came up last year, Compaoré quickly ran out of options to appease protestors.

The video below details the fall of president Compaoré:

Recent Developments 

The coup, or forced resignation, of October 2014 fits into Burkina Faso’s long history of power struggles, but this time the driving force seemed to be dissatisfaction among the public and not exclusively through military intervention. However, in a unique twist, the interim government under president Michel Kafando was briefly overthrown in a counter-coup in September.

The brief coup was led by the Presidential Security Regiment, which remained loyal to Blaise Compaoré after his rule ended. Members of the regiment orchestrated a coup due to their of support for the previous ruler and the fear that they would not be allowed to participate in the country’s upcoming elections. The coup lasted for about a week before its leaders were taken into custody. They now face trial for trying to “stop the process to democracy and liberty for the people of Burkina Faso.” Pressure from country’s military, the West African Bloc, and once again, the citizens of Burkina Faso themselves ensured that the takeover was only temporary. Elections remain scheduled for the end of November.

The accompanying video below details the end of the attempted coup:

Impact Abroad

While a controversial figure, Blaise Compaoré was also an invaluable mediator and his absence from the country may have important consequences for the region. Compaoré played a vital role in negotiations aimed at ending the violence in nearby Cote D’Ivoire and Mali. In 2013, the International Crisis Group implied that if he left power in 2015 it would be a significant loss for a strategically important point in West Africa.

Compaoré was also an important ally in the west’s fight against extremism in West Africa. Both the United States and France, Burkina Faso’s former colonial ruler, have troops stationed there. Following the protests, there were no immediate signs these troops would be removed or forced to leave. At the time of Compaoré’s resignation, it was also feared that his ouster could be a sign of things to come, a movement dubbed the “African Spring.” However, this concern never became a major issue.

Moving Forward

So what’s next for Burkina Faso?  Some view the recent changes in Burkina Faso as part of a larger movement, akin to the Arab Spring in North Africa, but possibly even larger. Zachariah Mampilly, an associate professor of Africana Studies at Vassar College, argues that the developments in Burkina Faso reflect a major trend in Africa. To Mampilly, the protests in North Africa and in places like Burkina Faso are not separate but intertwined over issues of inequality and perpetual poverty. In other words, the Arab Spring and the African Spring were not different movements, rather one larger movement across Africa. While relatively little progress has been made, the emerging trend in protests across the continent may be related.

On the other hand, some see the transition as far less altruistic. Immediately after Compaoré resigned, yet another, Lieutenant Colonel Zida, was elected to be Prime Minister of the interim government. The fact that a military man was once again involved raised questions over whether this was a change sparked by people or just another coup. While many remain skeptical, others are hopeful as the country continues to prepare for elections at the end of the month.

Conclusion

After 27 years under the rule of Blaise Compaoré, Burkina Faso is undergoing a period of rapid political change. After Compaoré’s forced resignation, an interim government was appointed only to be briefly overtaken by yet another coup. While the interim government has regained its control, the country has a long way to go before stability can return. Although elections are scheduled for the end of the month, the military’s involvement in the interim government has led many to question whether it will continue to consolidate its power in the vacuum left by Compaoré.

If Burkina Faso can stem off future coups and actually hold elections, it will go a long way to proving that it has made strides. If and when that happens, the country must then find a way to cultivate its natural wealth, while avoiding past pitfalls. If not, Burkina Faso could easily fall back into the cycle of coups that has plagued its history. If that turns out to be the case, the comparisons between what happened in Burkina Faso and the Arab Spring may, unfortunately, be quite fitting.

Resources

Encyclopedia Britannica: Burkina Faso

History World: History of Burkina Faso

Time: What You Need to Know About the Unrest in Burkina Faso

New York Times: Burkina Faso Charges General Who Led Failed Coup

World Politics Review: Compaoré’s Fall in Burkina Faso Signals Trouble for Africa’s ‘Presidents for Life’

Washington Post: Burkina Faso’s Uprising Part of an Ongoing Wave of African Protests

Al-Jazeera: Burkina Faso: Uprising or military coup?

New York Times: Violent Protests Topple Government in Burkina Faso

The Guardian: Burkina Faso Coup Leader in Custody

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Burkina Faso: A Troubled History and Looming Elections appeared first on Law Street.