❈ ❈ ❈

Africa Was Not Given Democracy. It Was Given a System Designed to Fail.

Ouma Don Collins

Democracy that was installed[1] in Africa with and through colonization, and deepened after it, was never pure democracy.[2] It was democracy adulterated with capitalism, configured from the beginning, not for the liberation of African peoples but for the continuation of their exploitation under a different flag.

But to say this is immediately to invite a challenge: if the democracy installed in Africa was adulterated, what would the unadulterated version look like? Was there ever such a thing? Are we invoking some European democratic ideal that Africa failed to receive? This challenge must be answered directly, because the answer is the foundation of everything that follows.

Pure democracy, in the fullest sense, has never been perfectly realized anywhere in the world. It is a standard — the principle that legitimate political authority is accountable solely to the welfare of the people it governs — with no structural subordination to the accumulation of private capital in this case, against which every existing system falls short. Measured against this standard, no European democracy, no American republic, no post-colonial African state has ever fully qualified. The argument here is not that Europe possessed genuine democracy and withheld it from Africa. The argument is more precise and more damning: capitalism structurally corrupts democratic governance wherever it operates, but Africa received a version already pre-corrupted at the point of installation.

And yet, this is the part the standard Western analysis consistently omits. Africa did not come to this question empty-handed. Pre-colonial African societies had developed their own sophisticated, functional governance traditions grounded in exactly the principle that pure democracy requires: that authority derives from service to the community, and that those who extract from the people they govern have forfeited their right to govern.[3]

The Igbo of Eastern Nigeria practiced a republican governance system without permanent centralized authority, in which power was distributed across age grades, lineage councils, and specialist associations, accountable at every level to the communities from which it derived. The Akan of West Africa built into their constitutional system the concept of destoolment: the formal, institutionalized removal of a chief who had abused his authority or failed his people. Across the continent, the Ubuntu philosophy, rendered most concisely as ‘I am because we are’, expressed a political ontology in which personhood itself is constituted through community, making governance oriented toward individual accumulation not merely bad policy but a violation of the conditions of human existence. These were not romantic cultural customs. They were working governance solutions, tested over centuries, oriented toward collective welfare rather than elite extraction.

What colonialism did was not introduce democratic governance to a continent without it. It dismantled, delegitimized, and systematically replaced these communal accountability practices with an alien administrative architecture whose foundational purpose was extraction. The capitalist democracy installed in their place did not merely fall short of a democratic ideal. Its foundational logic, the subordination of political authority to capital accumulation, directly contradicted the African governance traditions it displaced. This is the precise meaning of ‘adulterated democracy’: not democracy imperfectly implemented, but a system whose core operating principle was the opposite of what Africa’s own governance traditions had long understood democracy to require.

Western organizations continue to raise the subject of dwindling democracy in Africa as a growing concern. Freedom House and the V-Dem Institute have documented a consistent, sustained decline in democratic freedoms across the continent over the past two decades.[4] It tempts one to wonder, whether it is a genuine concern to the well-being of the African continent, or a threat to the established extractive super system. The standard Western response is to prescribe more of the same: more elections, more constitutional reform, more institutional training. But this misdiagnosis has been offered for sixty years, and sixty years of the same medicine has produced the same disease. The problem is not that Africa has not yet learned democracy. The problem is that what was installed was never genuinely democratic to begin with.

A System Built to Extract

When colonial powers introduced their forms of governance to Africa, they did not introduce it for Africans. They introduced it for settlers, for administrators, for the protection of property and capital. The indigenous African population was governed not by democracy but by the racial oligarchy of the colonial state, what Mahmood Mamdani called the bifurcation of citizen and subject: rights for the settler, administered extraction for the colonized.[5] When Africans gained flag independence, the departing powers, in most part, did not dismantle this architecture. They handed it to a class of African leaders trained in colonial educational institutions, socialized into colonial governance norms, and oriented, as Frantz Fanon predicted with devastating accuracy, not toward transformation of the colonial system but toward its management on behalf of the same international capital interests that had built it.

Fanon wrote that the post-colonial national bourgeoisie had no programme beyond serving as a ‘transmission line between the nation and a capitalism, rampant though camouflaged, which today puts on the mask of neocolonialism.’ [6] It is a sentence written in 1961 but reads like this morning’s news.

This was not, at root, a failure of individual character. It was a structural outcome that Rosa Luxemburg had theorized decades before African independence: capitalism cannot sustain itself within a closed system. It must continuously expand, colonize, and absorb non-capitalist spaces, including communal land, public services, and the state itself. When capitalism is installed at the heart of governance, the state does not remain a neutral instrument of public welfare. It becomes, by structural compulsion, an engine of accumulation.[7] Luxemburg called the destination of this compulsion imperialism. What Africa has lived, in its post-colonial states, is imperialism in government.

The Killing of Alternatives

The most damning evidence that this failure was architectural rather than accidental is the systematic pattern of violence visited upon every African leader who attempted to build something genuinely different.

Patrice Lumumba, the first democratically elected Prime Minister of the Congo, was murdered in January 1961. His crime was insisting that Congo’s cobalt, uranium, copper, and gold should serve the Congolese people. The CIA’s involvement in his removal has been confirmed through declassified documents. Belgium issued a formal parliamentary apology in 2002.[8] What replaced Lumumba was Mobutu. Thirty-two years of extraction was supported by Washington and Brussels, because it kept the resources flowing in the right direction.

Thomas Sankara governed Burkina Faso for four years. In those four years, he refused to pay colonial debt, redistributed land to peasant farmers, launched mass vaccination campaigns, planted ten million trees, and dramatically reduced government ministers’ salaries, including his own. He was assassinated in 1987 in a coup widely documented to have had French intelligence support. His successor reversed every policy within weeks and realigned the country with Paris and the IMF.[9] The pattern is not coincidence. It is policy.

Amilcar Cabral, Chris Hani, Mehdi Ben Barka, Felix Moumié, Eduardo Mondlane, the list of African patriots eliminated for threatening the extraction architecture is long, consistent, and impossible to read as anything other than the deliberate defense of a system by those who profit from it. When the bearers of genuine alternatives are killed, what remains is a managed succession between different factions of the same comprador classes as we have seen in Cameroon. That is not democracy. It is its negation dressed in democratic costume.

What the Coups Are Telling Us

The wave of military coups across the Sahel between 2020 and 2023, like in Mali, Guinea, Burkina Faso (twice), Niger, Gabon, has been met with near-uniform condemnation from African Union institutions and Western governments[10]. That condemnation is analytically and morally insufficient.

Systematic research on coups demonstrates that they are significantly more likely to succeed, and to receive popular support, in contexts of severe corruption, economic mismanagement, constitutional manipulation by incumbents, and suppression of civil society.[11] These are precisely the conditions that capitalist democracy, as practiced in Africa, reliably produces. The coup is not the disease. It is a symptom of a disease whose name is the capture of the state by extractive elites protected by neo-colonial power.

Jerry John Rawlings seized power in Ghana in 1979 because Ghana’s civilian and military elites had reduced a country of immense human potential to an economy of black markets and triple-digit inflation through systematic corruption and self-enrichment. He tried and executed three former heads of state for corruption, communicating something no formal democratic institution had managed to communicate in two decades of independence: that those who held power over the people were accountable to the people, and that accountability had consequences.[12] He subsequently won two democratic elections in 1992 and 1996, chosen by the same people whose democracy he had twice interrupted, because they understood the difference between his interruptions and the systems he had interrupted – the system, or a democracy that was not working for them.

Captain Ibrahim Traoré of Burkina Faso is thirty-four years old. He served on front lines where soldiers were dying without adequate weapons while defense ministry officials pocketed the funds meant to equip them. A 2022 audit confirmed hundreds of billions of CFA francs in misappropriated defense funds.[13] His decision to expel French special forces and renegotiate the terms of Burkina Faso’s post-colonial relationships is not military adventurism. It is the political logic of a man who has watched what those relationships produce in blood, in the villages of the north, and has refused to continue managing their consequences.

When tens of thousands gather in Ouagadougou’s Place de la Nation waving Pan-African flags and portraits of Sankara, they are not celebrating authoritarianism. They are delivering a democratic verdict on the system that was given to them, on those who ran it, and on the external powers that sustained it. That verdict deserves to be heard, not dismissed.

The patriotic coup is not a sustainable path to genuine democratic development. Military governments, even those motivated by genuine commitment to their people, either face structural incentives toward the concentration of power, or are overcome by it. They inherit the same structural constraints: the CFA franc, the debt architecture, and the commodity pricing system that strangled their civilian predecessors. The failures of J.J Rawlings remains a good example in this, and other examples across Africa, including Yoweri Kaguta Museveni of Uganda.[14] History[15] is honest about this, and we must be too.

But the coup as testimony, as evidence of how thoroughly the existing system has failed, of how deep the democratic disillusionment runs, of the existence of African men and women willing to risk everything to reclaim their states, cannot be ignored. Any analysis of African democratic failure that ignores it is not serious analysis. It is apologetics for the system that produced the failure.

The Alternative Is African

The answer to Africa’s democratic crisis will not come from Washington or Brussels, from the multilateral institutions whose structural adjustment programmes spent three decades dismantling African self-determination, or from more sophisticated versions of the same constitutional templates that colonial powers drafted for their departing administrations.

It will come from Ubuntu, the principle that governance is a relational practice, that authority derives from service to the collective, and that a ruler who extracts from the people has already ceased to govern them. It will come from the tradition of Ujamaa, Julius Nyerere’s insistence that African society was fundamentally socialist in its communal ethic long before Marx, and that genuine African governance must express that ethic rather than suppress it.[16]

It will come from the Pan-African solidarity that Nkrumah understood was the only structural answer to neo-colonial fragmentation: a continent that speaks with a single economic voice, controls its own monetary sovereignty, prices its own resources, and is no longer dependent on the will of those whose structural interest is its continued subordination.

Most fundamentally, it will come from communities – from the deliberative traditions, the councils, the destoolment practices, the communal accountability mechanisms that survived colonialism and structural adjustment, and that continue to govern the actual daily life of African peoples in ways that the captured formal state has long ceased to do. Democratic renewal in Africa will not be handed down from above. It will be built from below, on foundations that are principally African, in institutions that are genuinely accountable, toward a vision of human flourishing that capitalism, however it is dressed, has never been able to provide.

Africa was not given democracy. It was given a system designed to serve the interests of those who installed it. Recognizing that is not pessimism. It is the beginning of clarity. And clarity, as Thomas Sankara understood, and as Ibrahim Traoré is discovering anew, is the first requirement of genuine liberation.

Endnotes

[1] The term ‘installed’ is used deliberately. Democracy was not a gift carried to Africa from a more enlightened civilization. It was an administrative technology implanted by colonial powers into territories they were simultaneously plundering, configured to serve the logic of that plunder.

[2] The concept of ‘pure democracy’ deployed here is not a claim that such a system has been perfectly realized anywhere in the world. It is a theoretical standard: governance in which political authority is accountable solely to the welfare of the people it governs, with no structural subordination to the accumulation of private capital. On this standard, no capitalist democracy — European, American, or African — has ever fully qualified.

[3] On Igbo republican governance, see Chinua Achebe, Things Fall Apart (London: Heinemann, 1958); C.K. Meek, Law and Authority in a Nigerian Tribe (London: Oxford University Press, 1937). On Akan destoolment, see K.A. Busia, The Position of the Chief in the Modern Political System of Ashanti (London: Oxford University Press, 1951). On Ubuntu as political philosophy, see Mogobe Ramose, African Philosophy through Ubuntu (Harare: Mond Books, 1999).

[4] Freedom House, Freedom in the World 2023 (Washington, DC: Freedom House, 2023); Anna Lührmann et al., Democracy Report 2023: Defiance in the Face of Autocratization (Gothenburg: V-Dem Institute, 2023).

[5] Crawford Young, The African Colonial State in Comparative Perspective (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994); Mahmood Mamdani, Citizen and Subject: Contemporary Africa and the Legacy of Late Colonialism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996).

[6] Frantz Fanon, The Wretched of the Earth (1961; New York: Grove Press, 2004), p. 149.

[7] Rosa Luxemburg, The Accumulation of Capital: A Contribution to the Economic Theory of Imperialism (1913; English translation London: Routledge, 1951), p. 348.

[8] Ludo De Witte, The Assassination of Lumumba (London: Verso, 2001); U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence Activities, Alleged Assassination Plots Involving Foreign Leaders (Washington, DC, 1975).

[9] Ernest Harsch, Thomas Sankara: An African Revolutionary (Athens, OH: Ohio University Press, 2014); AFP, ‘Burkina Faso: Blaise Compaoré Found Guilty of Killing Thomas Sankara,’ Agence France-Presse, 6 April 2022.

[10] Alina Abramova, “Military Coups in West Africa: The Case of Burkina Faso,” RUDN Journal of Political Science 27 (December 2025), researchgate.net; Louisa Brooke-Holland, “Coups and Political Stability in West Africa,” House of Commons Library, November 17, 2024, parliament.uk.

[11] Jonathan Powell and Clayton Thyne, ‘Global Instances of Coups from 1950 to 2010: A New Dataset,’ Journal of Peace Research, 48(2), 2011, pp. 249–259.

[12] Paul Nugent, Big Men, Small Boys and Politics in Ghana (London: Pinter, 1995).

[13] Reuters, ‘Audit Finds Missing Defence Funds in Burkina Faso,’ February 2022; RFI, ‘Burkina Faso Asks France to Withdraw Its Special Forces,’ Radio France Internationale, 25 January 2023.

[14] Aili Mari Tripp, Museveni’s Uganda: Paradoxes of Power in a Hybrid Regime (Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner Publishers, 2010), 45–62; Roger Tangri and Andrew M. Mwenda, “President Museveni and the Politics of Presidential Tenure in Uganda,” Journal of Contemporary African Studies 28, no. 1 (2010): 31–49; Nathan Vasher, Museveni’s Power and the Political Economy of Development in Uganda (Saarbrücken: LAP LAMBERT Academic Publishing, 2013).

[15] Fanny Pigeaud and Ndongo Samba Sylla, Africa’s Last Colonial Currency: The CFA Franc Story, trans. Thomas Fazi (London: Pluto Press, 2021), 65-72; Joseph Tchundjang Pouemi, Monnaie, servitude et liberté: La répression monétaire de l’Afrique (Paris: Éditions Économie et Humanisme, 1980), 112; Kai Koddenbrock and Ndongo Samba Sylla, “Towards a Political Economy of Monetary Dependency: The Case of the CFA Franc in West Africa,” African Affairs 118, no. 472 (2019): 485; Aloysius Ajab Amin, “The Development Cost of Maintaining Price and Economic Stability in Central and West African CFA Franc Zone,” Journal of Economic Integration 37, no. 1 (2022): 50-54.

[16] Julius Nyerere, Ujamaa: Essays on Socialism (Dar es Salaam: Oxford University Press, 1968).

[Ouma Don Collins is a Pan Africanist crusader from Kenya, a social entrepreneur and poet. He writes on African political economy, democratic governance, and Pan-Africanism. Courtesy: Pambazuka News, the authoritative Pan-African website and newsletter for social justice in Africa and the global South providing cutting edge commentary and in-depth analysis on the struggle for freedom and justice. It is produced by a community of 2,800 citizens and organisations.]

❈ ❈ ❈

Ibrahim Traoré: We Do Not Want a Democracy That Kills

Nicholas Mwangi

The recent interview by Ibrahim Traoré, president of Burkina Faso, has caused widespread debate after going viral across global media platforms. Headlines, particularly from mainstream outlets, quickly framed his remarks as a wholesale rejection of democracy, some even suggesting an intention to entrench permanent military rule.

But this interpretation, while sensational, is deeply misleading. It strips Traoré’s statements of their political, historical, and material context that is essential to understanding both his words and the broader trajectory of the Sahel region.

Democracy, but which democracy?

The remarks emerged not from an abstract discussion, but from a grounded conversation about security, sovereignty, and survival. For nearly half an hour, the interview focused on the ongoing insurgencies in the Sahel, particularly the threat posed by jihadist groups linked to al Qaeda and the broader crisis of state stability.

It was only when Traoré was asked about elections, specifically whether a newly adopted revolutionary charter could allow him to extend his rule, that the issue of democracy arose.

His response; elections, he argued, were not the immediate concern. Burkina Faso faces existential challenges, and the priority is confronting those threats and rebuilding the state. It is within this framework that his now widely quoted statement, “people need to forget about democracy” must be understood.

He stated, “We must tell the truth. Democracy is not for us, this kind of democracy that these people show us. That’s not what interests us.”

When Traoré states that “democracy is not for us,” he is not speaking in a vacuum. His critique is directed at a specific model; Western liberal democracy was historically exported to Africa through intervention, coercion, and conditional aid.

He gave the example of Libya, whose destruction following the NATO intervention in Libya remains as an example across the continent. For Traoré, Libya represents a warning; a state that, whatever its internal contradictions, was dismantled in the name of “democracy”, leaving behind chaos, displacement, and humanitarian catastrophe.

We came to completely change the way things work, but above all to change mindsets so that people open their eyes, see the world, and so that we never fall into that trap again. People are here; democracy is slavery. There is no democracy in this world. They pretend there is. They do as they please. And to establish it, they kill. Democracy that kills. We do not want democracy. May God spare us from that kind of democracy. We are focused on our conquest, on our rebuilding, and on the revolution. It is the only path to development.

Thus, when he says “democracy kills,” it can also be interpreted that he is condemning a geopolitical process whereby “democracy” becomes a justification for regime change, foreign domination, and violent restructuring. These narratives have been used recently in both Venezuela and Iran, where actions against leaders are framed as justified interventions.

Traoré’s position must be situated within the crisis of sovereignty in the Sahel. Countries like Mali, Niger, and Burkina Faso have experienced repeated cycles of instability, foreign military presence, and economic dependency.

The rise of military-led governments in the region, notwithstanding the challenges, has been tied to a popular rejection of neocolonial arrangements, particularly those associated with former colonial powers like France.

This is the political terrain from which Traoré speaks. His insistence on “revolution,” “rebuilding,” and “changing mindsets” reflects an attempt, however contested, to break from a model of governance seen as externally imposed and internally hollow.

Misreading the Sahel

Many liberal democratic commentators have approached Traoré’s statements through a narrow, textbook definition of democracy. This framework struggles to account for situations where the state itself is under threat, where territorial control is fragmented, and where external actors play a decisive role in shaping internal politics.

The result is a recurring pattern of misinterpretation, complex political statements are reduced to authoritarian impulses, and debates about sovereignty are dismissed as anti-democratic rhetoric.

Interestingly, similar questions arise elsewhere. In Ukraine, President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has postponed elections, arguing that national survival in the face of war must take precedence.

While the contexts are vastly different, the underlying principle is comparable, the sequencing of political processes in times of crisis. But global reactions to these decisions are far from consistent.

None of this is to suggest that the Sahel’s current trajectory is without challenges. The region faces immense challenges; political, economic, and social. However, reducing Traoré’s position to a rejection of democracy misses the point entirely. What is at stake is not simply “democracy versus authoritarianism”, but a deeper struggle over sovereignty, development, and the right of societies to define their own political paths.

Whether one agrees with his conclusions or not, the historical realities shaping the Sahel must be taken into context.

[Nicholas Mwangi is a Kenyan writer, historian, and political organiser associated with the Ukombozi Library and the Dagoretti Social Justice Center in Nairobi. He is a regular contributor to People’s Dispatch. Courtesy: Peoples Dispatch, an international media organization with the mission of highlighting voices from people’s movements and organizations across the globe.]