The annals of authoritarian regimes are marked by a paradox as old as power itself: the tools of repression, designed to silence opponents, often end up consuming those who once wielded them. Burkina Faso now exemplifies this dynamic under Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s leadership. Over the months, a wave of arbitrary arrests, forced disappearances reported by multiple watchdogs, smear campaigns, intimidating summons, media restrictions, and citizen conscriptions in the name of national mobilization have expanded beyond traditional critics. Today, even Muslim community leaders, civil society figures, commentators, influencers, and opinion shapers—once staunch supporters of the transition—are finding themselves ensnared by a system where loyalty no longer guarantees protection.
From allies to targets: the shifting landscape of repression
This isn’t a series of isolated incidents but a systemic shift. When a regime centralizes decision-making, erodes spaces for dissent, and equates criticism with a threat to the state, suspicion becomes the default lens through which society is viewed. In such an environment, the line between adversary and ally blurs, as the sole criterion for safety is no longer past allegiance but unconditional obedience.
The illusion of loyalty in an unchecked power structure
Since seizing power, Ibrahim Traoré has cultivated legitimacy through a discourse of sovereignty, patriotism, and security. This narrative, amplified across social media by a dedicated chorus of supporters, frames any dissent as an attempt to destabilize the nation, orchestrated by foreign actors, political opponents, or so-called “enemies of the state.”
In this climate, public figures have played a role in normalizing these practices. Arbitrary detentions were justified as security imperatives. Disappearances of critical voices were downplayed. Closures of domestic and foreign media outlets were hailed as acts of sovereignty. Conscriptions of journalists, lawyers, judges, and political figures were sometimes applauded as necessary sacrifices for the national fight against terrorism.
This gradual normalization of exception has reshaped public debate. Nuance has been replaced by a binary logic: unquestioning support for Ibrahim Traoré or immediate labeling as an accomplice of the enemy. In such a climate, contradiction is no longer seen as a democratic right but as a political betrayal.
The flaw in this strategy is evident: when a regime demands absolute allegiance, even the slightest reservation is interpreted as defiance. Yesterday’s allies become tomorrow’s suspects.
The cult of personality and the spread of suspicion
A defining trait of Burkina Faso’s transition is the increasing personalization of power around Captain Ibrahim Traoré. Public policy debates are increasingly overshadowed by the defense of the leader’s authority. Questioning a government decision is often perceived as a direct challenge to his personal leadership.
This personalization fuels a culture of perpetual suspicion. As security challenges persist, the search for internal culprits intensifies. Military failures, repeated terrorist attacks, economic hardships, social tensions, and international criticism fuel a narrative where difficulties are attributed not to policy choices but to alleged conspiracies.
This mechanism triggers a well-documented pattern in authoritarian systems: the circle of suspected individuals expands relentlessly. It begins with political opponents, then includes independent journalists, human rights organizations, judges, academics, religious leaders—and eventually, even former allies whose influence or alignment with the official line becomes deemed insufficient.
In a system where loyalty must be endlessly proven, no one can be certain of remaining indefinitely on the right side of power.
Fear as a governing tool
The systematic use of high-profile arrests, public summons, social media smear campaigns, threats of conscription, and administrative sanctions serves a dual purpose: neutralizing dissent and sending a chilling message to society.
Each arrest serves as a warning. Each unexplained disappearance stokes fear. Each summons reinforces the idea that no one is untouchable. Each dramatic conscription underscores the regime’s coercive reach against anyone perceived as troublesome.
This climate fosters self-censorship. Intellectuals hesitate to publish. Journalists scale back investigations. Religious leaders soften their sermons. Citizens avoid public debates. A society governed by fear loses its capacity to innovate, correct mistakes, and forge collective solutions.
The erosion of checks and balances
This trend is especially alarming given the weakening of institutional safeguards. The independence of the judiciary is frequently questioned when legal proceedings appear politically motivated rather than grounded in law. Independent media face suspensions or shutdowns that narrow the diversity of information. Civil society organizations operate under increasingly restrictive conditions. Political parties operate under tight constraints in the transition context.
When no institution can effectively hold the executive accountable, citizens’ rights become precarious. Power is no longer limited by law but by the whims of its holder.
A historical pattern of authoritarian drift
Burkina Faso is not alone in this trajectory. 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 sideline their founders. Ideologues are accused of treason. The logic is simple: when loyalty to the leader becomes the primary criterion for political survival, no amount of allegiance is ever enough. The pursuit of political purity inevitably leads to purges, exclusions, and accusations.
Fundamental rights are not privileges granted to the faithful. They are universal guarantees designed to protect every individual from abuse of power. Celebrating the arbitrary detention of an adversary is to accept the principle of arbitrariness itself. Once this logic takes root, it knows no bounds. Injustice does not change its nature based on the identity of its victim.
The false promise of protection
Many of Ibrahim Traoré’s former supporters made the mistake of believing their proximity to power would shield them indefinitely. Yet in authoritarian systems, loyalty is not a contract; it is a precarious relationship, constantly reassessed based on shifting interests.
Burkina Faso faces real terrorist threats that demand a robust state response. But the effectiveness of counterterrorism cannot be measured solely by the volume of coercive measures. It depends on the trust between citizens and institutions. When people fear the state more than they trust its protection, that trust erodes. History shows that no insurgency can be defeated sustainably if institutions lose their credibility with the very people 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 fight against the enemy risks becoming an excuse for total control.
When the system turns inward
The predicament now facing figures once allied with the regime reflects a broader political reality: in a system where institutions are weakened and power relies on fear, no one enjoys lasting protection. Today’s allies may become tomorrow’s suspects. The most ardent defenders can be accused of insufficient loyalty. Communication channels can be dismantled and sidelined. Religious leaders can be reprimanded if their discourse strays from the official line. The arsonist ends up burning themselves.
Yet beyond individual fates, the entire society bears the cost. When a regime extends suspicion even to its own supporters, it reveals a systemic flaw: the problem is not the people, but the architecture of power itself. The true protection of a nation rests not on proximity to the leader 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.
