History is replete with regimes that, in their quest for absolute control, inadvertently turn the very tools of repression against those who once championed them. Burkina Faso under Captain Ibrahim Traoré exemplifies this paradox, where measures once justified as necessary for national security now ensnare former allies. Arbitrary detentions, forced disappearances, smear campaigns, intimidating summons, media restrictions, and wartime conscription requirements no longer target only traditional critics but also include Muslim leaders, civil society figures, commentators, influencers, and opinion-makers who once stood firmly behind the transition.
This shift is not a series of isolated incidents but a reflection of a deeper systemic transformation. As power consolidates all decision-making levers, suppresses dissent, and equates criticism with threats to the state, suspicion becomes the default lens through which society is viewed. In such an environment, loyalty offers no guarantee of safety; only perpetual obedience meets the regime’s shifting demands.
Loyalty as a fleeting currency under a monopolised power
Since seizing power, Ibrahim Traoré has cultivated legitimacy through a narrative of sovereignty, patriotism, and security. This rhetoric, amplified across social media by an army of supporters, frames any dissent as an attempt at destabilisation orchestrated by foreign entities, political opponents, or so-called enemies of the nation.
In this climate, many public figures have actively defended the regime’s actions. Arbitrary arrests were framed as security imperatives. Disappearances of critical voices were downplayed. Closures of national and international media outlets were praised as acts of sovereignty. Summons of journalists, lawyers, judges, or political actors were sometimes applauded in the name of national mobilization against terrorism.
This gradual normalization of exception has reshaped public discourse. Nuance has vanished, replaced by a binary logic: unconditional support for Ibrahim Traoré or immediate labeling as an accomplice of the enemy. In such a climate, questioning is no longer seen as a democratic right but as a political transgression.
Yet this strategy carries a hidden danger. When a regime demands total allegiance, even minor reservations are perceived as defiance. Yesterday’s allies can quickly become today’s suspects.
Personalisation of power fuels perpetual suspicion
A defining feature of Burkina Faso’s transition is the intense personalisation of power around Captain Ibrahim Traoré. Public debate now revolves less around policies and more around defending the leader himself. Questioning a government decision is often interpreted as a challenge to his personal authority.
This personalisation fosters an environment of constant suspicion. As security challenges persist, the search for internal scapegoats intensifies. Military failures, repeated terrorist attacks, economic difficulties, social tensions, and international criticism fuel a narrative in which problems stem not from flawed policies but from alleged conspiracies.
This mechanism triggers a well-documented pattern in authoritarian systems: the circle of suspected individuals expands relentlessly. Initially, political opponents are targeted. 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 permanently on the regime’s good side.
Fear as a governing tool
The repeated use of publicized arrests, high-profile summons, social media smear campaigns, threats of conscription, and administrative sanctions sends a powerful psychological message to society.
Each arrest serves as a warning. Each unexplained disappearance fuels fear. Each summons reminds citizens of their vulnerability. Each spectacular conscription reinforces the perception that coercive measures can be applied to anyone deemed troublesome.
This strategy fosters self-censorship. Intellectuals hesitate to publish. Journalists scale back investigations. Religious leaders moderate sermons. Citizens avoid public debates. A society governed by fear gradually loses its capacity to innovate, correct mistakes, and build collective solutions.
Erosion of institutional checks and balances
This evolution is particularly concerning in a context where key oversight mechanisms appear increasingly fragile.
The independence of the judiciary is frequently questioned, with procedures seemingly influenced by political imperatives rather than legal principles. Independent media face restrictions or suspensions that undermine pluralism. Civil society organizations operate in an ever-shrinking space. Political parties face severe constraints due to the transition context.
When no institution can effectively challenge executive power, citizen protections become precarious. The government is no longer bound by law but by its own discretion.
A familiar pattern in authoritarian governance
Burkina Faso is not alone in this trajectory. History shows that regimes built on concentrated power often follow a similar path.
Revolutionaries eliminate former comrades. Military leaders grow suspicious of their own officers. Political movements sideline their founders. Ideologues are accused of betrayal.
This pattern stems from a simple logic: when loyalty to an individual becomes the primary criterion for political survival, no level of allegiance is ever enough. Constant proof of commitment is demanded, leading inexorably to purges, exclusions, and accusations.
Fundamental rights are not privileges
The current situation underscores a fundamental 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 against arbitrary arrests or forced disappearances—these are not rewards granted to loyal citizens. They are universal guarantees designed to protect everyone from state abuses.
Applauding the arbitrary arrest of an opponent is tantamount to accepting the principle of arbitrariness itself. Once this logic takes hold, it can be applied to any citizen. Injustice does not change its nature based on the identity of its victim.
Many of Ibrahim Traoré’s early supporters made the mistake of believing their proximity to power would ensure lasting protection. Yet in authoritarian systems, loyalty is never a contract—it is a precarious relationship, constantly reassessed based on shifting interests.
Security crisis cannot justify every deviation
Burkina Faso faces a real terrorist threat that demands a strong state response. This reality is undeniable.
However, the effectiveness of counterterrorism efforts cannot be measured solely by the volume of coercive measures. It also depends on trust between citizens and institutions.
When the population fears arbitrary decisions more than it trusts state protection, that trust erodes. History demonstrates that no lasting victory over insurgency can be achieved 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 upholding the law strengthens its legitimacy. Conversely, when emergency measures become permanent, the risk grows of turning the fight against the enemy into justification for total societal control.
The system turns on its own allies
The difficulties now faced by figures who once championed the regime illustrate a broader political reality: in a system where institutions are weakened and power relies on fear, no one enjoys lasting protection.
Today’s allies can become tomorrow’s suspects. The most ardent defenders may be accused of insufficient loyalty. Communication allies can be replaced and marginalized. Religious figures may be reprimanded if their discourse strays from the official line. The waterer eventually gets watered.
Beyond individual destinies, it is the entire society that bears the cost of this evolution. When a regime extends suspicion even to its own supporters, it reveals that the problem lies not with individuals but with the very structure of the political system. The true protection of a nation does not come from proximity to the head of state or ideological alignment but from strong institutions, independent justice, 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.