The unfolding scenario in Niamey follows an almost mechanical, tragically predictable pattern. While regimes and leaders may change, the fundamental approach to power remains disconcertingly consistent.
When heavy gunfire and explosions once again pierced the night near the presidential palace and airbase in Niamey, the population held its breath, gripped by an unsettling sense of déjà vu. Whether these events stem from frustrated garrison mutinies or high-level rivalries within the military apparatus, they are not random occurrences. Instead, they serve as direct symptoms of the very architecture of regimes born from coups d’état.
Since the overthrow of civilian rule in July 2023, the historical narrative remains clear: leaders who seize power through force are inexorably threatened or ultimately removed by the very same means.
This recurring fate is rooted in precise structural and political factors that invariably exhaust military juntas:
A protracted transition period
A prolonged transitional period can feel like an eternity to a populace initially asked for a temporary sacrifice. As months turn into a lengthy period, the initial public enthusiasm or tolerance gives way to legitimate frustration. When this exceptional interlude extends indefinitely, the absence of a clear democratic horizon transforms promises of national renewal into a mere exercise in power preservation.
The enduring security challenge
At the core of the Niger coup’s justification was the pledge to «restore security and dignity.» Yet, governance by decree does not magically erase the realities on the ground. When, despite sovereignist rhetoric and shifts in geopolitical alliances, security promises are slow to materialize, and soldiers continue to shed blood on the front lines, the narrative weakens. Doubt begins to seep into the ranks of the troops, eventually spreading to the streets.
Force as the ultimate arbiter
By overturning a constitutional order, a military power like the CNSP implicitly validates force as the sole legitimate method for resolving political disputes. Consequently, when General Tiani demonstrates that a rifle can secure the presidential chair, he inadvertently teaches the same lesson to colonels, captains, or rival factions within the armed forces. The army ceases to function as a monolithic shield, instead becoming a chessboard of internal rivalries. According to official reports, the situation on August 28 was indeed a mutiny within the armed forces.
From Seyni Kountché to Ibrahim Baré Maïnassara, and including Salou Djibo, Niger’s political annals consistently illustrate that power obtained by bayonets inherently carries the seeds of its own opposition.
The recent gunshots near the corridors of power are merely an echo of this political law. As long as legitimacy is not anchored in a republican and civilian pact, power in Niamey will remain vulnerable to the slightest spark emanating from the barracks. This is because a weapon holds no eternal allegiance: the same one that installs a man in power today remains precisely the one that threatens to unseat him tomorrow.