A Marxist once came to power in Burkina Faso, campaigning on slogans such as "we must choose between wine for a few, or clean drinking water for all."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara
They killed him.
A Marxist once came to power in Burkina Faso, campaigning on slogans such as "we must choose between wine for a few, or clean drinking water for all."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Sankara
They killed him.
Le président du Faso s’est prononcé sur l’idéologie politique en cours au Burkina. « Nous ne sommes pas dans une démocratie. Nous sommes bien en révolution progressiste populaire. Il faut que tout le monde comprenne cela », a affirmé Ibrahim Traoré.
Pour lui, aucun pays ne peut se développer dans la démocratie qui est « l’aboutissement ».
« On passe forcément par une révolution et nous sommes bel et bien en révolution », a-t-il déclaré, tout en invitant les Burkinabè s’en approprier.
Selon lui, la question de démocratie ou de libertinage d’action ou d’expression, n’a pas sa place. Elle débouche sur une « société de désordre ».
« On ne fait pas de révolution dans le désordre, c’est impossible. Et nous allons faire régner l’ordre et la discipline pour que nous puissions progresser. Parce que les réformes sociales, économiques, politiques, idéologiques ont besoin d’ordre et de discipline. Et chacun a son rôle à jouer », a insisté le Chef de l’Etat.
https://fr.apanews.net/news/nous-ne-sommes-pas-dans-une-democratie-capitaine-traore/
So, basically what's he's saying is that the situation is too volatile for democracy, that they want to do certain reforms that require order. The concept of a provisional transitional dictatorship to stabilize things is not an aberration per se, in the context of a chaotic situation. In theory it could be reasonable.
So far so good. One can debate his sincerity, can have different assessments of whether he's right or not. That's legitimate political debate.
But the other things he said, equating democracy as such with crimes, that's extremely alarming. The problem is that he's making an ideology out of a necessity. He's not saying "the country is not ready, we need to first stabilize and then democratize". He's saying that democracy isn't even an horizon. And even worse he's not even qualifying what kind of democracy he's rejecting, he's rejecting democracy as such. Really Existing Socialist countries at least maintain that they are higher forms of democracy. He's done away with the concept altogether.
I think the exact opposite. Saying that "democracy isn't for us" banishes any kind of democracy that could happen in the country. It even bans the possibility that there is a right way of democracy for the country.
The current crimes linked to western democracy are just connected to the current state of democracy. That Burkina Faso shouldn't buy into a democracy that kills, that doesn't build hospitals, and so on. That doesn't mean the concept of democracy cannot change for implementation on the country for the future.
Anyway, exact opposite.
Same way as "socialism" is linked to the Russias puppet dictators in eastern Europe and the corrupt shit circus they created.
Burkina Faso also pulled themselves out of the International Criminal Court with similar logic. They said America, Isreal, Russia, and China all get to do basically whatever they want globally while Burkina Faso is constantly slapped with sanctions
Now those sanctions are because that country is one of the most dangerous on the planet, so it's hard to take the military leader at his word. Even if he had a valid point
One of the most infuriating aspects of western imperialism and corruption is how douchebag leaders in non-western countries can point at it and say "See? This is why you need the kind of strong ruler who is willing to massacre unarmed protesters."
that country is one of the most dangerous on the planet
What did they do to beat out Russia and America?
I think it's hard for any American to accuse any country of being "the most dangerous on the planet" when you look at history.
Does that say "the most dangerous ever" or just "most dangerous"? I'm not sure what history has to do with the present.
A military dictatorship isn't particularly representative of freedom.
Since 1 September 2025, the new criminal code has come into force banning any homosexual acts and promotion of homosexuality or "similar" behaviour (i.e. LGBTQ activities) with 2 to 5 years in prison and a fine as punishment. Foreign nationals who violate the law will be deported.
Ye...eah, that seems like a bit of "doing something wrong" to be actively regressing on personal freedoms.
Some 30% of Burkinabés are Christian or Catholic. It could be argued that homophobia in Burkina Faso is a result of western colonialism via mission trips and schools.
Even assuming that this has anything directly to do with religion which is already a big leap it is a Muslim majority country that had no laws against homosexuality prior to or right after independence from France... Sorry but this sounds like a pretty difficult one to pin on western colonialism.
To put it simply, when western forces colonize a people, they simultaneously suppress and frame their traditions as barbaric and prop up their own western values as civilized. The colonized people experience unconscionable violence from these western forces, seeing first hand the inhumanity being caused in the name of 'civility'. Naturally, as anti-colonial resistance mounts, the most anti-West voices gain the most momentum, seen as less corruptible to those western forces and more unwavering in their resistance. So it's no surprise that reactionary attitudes on civil rights come as a reaction to western colonialism.
It's only once a people are able to reclaim their sovereignty that civil rights movements are able to build, fight for, and win those rights domestically. Without being co-opted by foreign powers with the only goal of destabilization.
I wasn't aware of the connection myself until I read Fanon's works at length
The suppression of those traditions, on Fanon’s account, marginalize or push tradition into secret—or, perhaps, keep the tradition in the open, but always as backward, abject, and contrary to modernity. This means tradition is still alive, not a mirage, and as alive also valued deeply by communities resisting colonial rule. Such traditions can be instrumentalized for the sake of revolutionary action, only to be evaluated after colonialism for their suitability in a postcolonial nation and culture. The same logic is elaborated in “The Algerian Family”, where Fanon explores the traditional structure of families in Algeria, in particular how those families set gender identity, power, marriage, and reproduction in fixed roles. Revolutionary families, he argues, identify these fixed roles and break with them while also maintaining a conviction that their practices are Algerian—that is, Algerian in the new sense.
No doubt it and many other historical events will affect many things later on but it's still not really a reasonable position to assume that has to be it even with lots of evidence that makes it seem unlikely in a particular case. Colonialism did not introduce anti-homosexual attitudes to the African continent. Islam, which arrived before the western colonialists also has them but wasn't the first appearance of that there either.
This history of lgbt acceptance and religion is complicated, but that is beside the point here.
Colonialism and Imperialism are absolutely to blame for the reasons described prior, they have significantly halted progress made in civil rights within their target countries. A foreign power mass executing your people makes it difficult for the conversion to be anything but liberation.
If you want to learn more about the psychology of colonialism on the colonized, and how that influences social beliefs and revolutionary resistance, read anything Frantz Fanon.
Sorry but colonialism being to blame here seems like an a priori assumption with you and not anything that you've actually factually established.
I certainly don't have a problem with the idea of colonialism or other parts of history having very long lasting and diverse effects but it's just not the case that we can say it is the root cause of any given issue absent of any real evidence for such a claim.
My analysis is based on Fanon, how well read are you on anti-colonialism?
As I said. "Analysis" only based on a theoretical framework with zero supporting facts is not analysis, it's dogma.
There are a significant amount of support facts for how French Colonialism and Neocolonialism have affected Burkina Faso, not to mention the plethora of other countries affected similarly. Not only does Fanon use a large amount of supporting facts in his works, it's very easy to find such in reference to neocolonialism online. As I have when responding to the other person.
This is a classic appeal to authority rather than addressing their question.
No, it's not unless you're claiming Fanon in unreliable and not credible. A counter argument of 'I don't personally think so' is not a valid counter argument against the highly respected works of an academic who both lived and studied his lifes work
The Wretched of the Earth
A Dying Colonialism
Black Skin, White Masks
If you can't attack the substance, you attack the source. The only other time I've seen a weak bs claim of 'appeal to authority' is from people who try to discredit human rights reporting on genocide.
You're asserting that because a person is a highly respected academic that we should accept their conclusions are relevant here - you are not synthesizing their work with applicability for your claim that the current regression on LGBTQ rights is the result of colonialism.
For an example of what I mean:
We are making the claim that Burkina Faso has been an independent country for 65 years. For most of that time, while LGBTQ people were not broadly loved, there was no outright oppression - arguably (from one [edit: one very important] perspective) they were better about homosexual relationships than many western countries in the same timeframes. This recent shift is a regression primarily from internal pressures - it's been too long to reasonably claim that this shift in attitude is singly the result of a reaction to having been a colony.
You have not done anything to refute that claim, or present evidence or reasoning that your claim (that this is the result of colonial and imperialistic pressures) is at all applicable, beyond citing a well known and well respected academic who has not talked about this specific situation. You are instead insisting that we cannot argue against your argument because your argument cites the work of a respected academic, and are shifting our criticism of your claims to criticism of Fanon's claims, which is unfair. I have not addressed Fanon's thesis here because I am questioning the applicability of that thesis to these events; that is a claim you have made, and which you have not supported.
This is absolutely an appeal to authority - you claim that your argument is based on respected works and therefore has standing on that merit above the claims of others.
First, thank you for well written response
It's true that Fanon himself did not write too much on neocolonialism, as it was a bit past his time. However, if you understand how reactionary sentiments foment in the process of an anti-colonialist revolution, it's not difficult to understand how that persists in the face of neocolonialism, as western empires continue to subjugate these nations with modern methods.
In the case of Burkina Faso, we can't ignore France's neocolonialist actions since their independence. They have not been sovereign in the same sense that western nations have. While western nations were able to develop civil rights free of the constant battle against neocolonial dominance, this is still not the case for countries like Burkina Faso. France has still been a constant threat against their sovereignty, and as such, the anti-western hardliners continue to stay in power.
Spoiler
Unlike what they did in Indochina and Algeria, France granted independence to most of its West and Central African colonies peacefully in the 1960s. Just because these new countries were independent in name, however, does not mean they were sovereign... the African Financial Community (CFA) franc monetary zone, which is inherently unequal and rooted in exploitative practices.
For decades, France had a certain level of control of Burkina Faso’s monetary situation through their establishment of the CFA Franc zone, This monetary union between numerous West African countries and France, stipulated that these countries maintain their monetary reserves within French treasuries [8]. This monetary policy resulted in an economy that increasingly favored French imports instead of attempting to rely on domestic production, which maintained the historical level of dependence on France that existed within the country and neighboring regions. This dependence on France has made it difficult for Burkina Faso to sustainably develop local communities due to economic policies that favor foreign influences instead of local development.
On 15 October 1987, the socialist president of Burkina Faso, Thomas Sankara, was assassinated, aged 37. He was killed in a military coup that is suspected to have been backed by France, the former colonial power.
After Sankara’s death, Burkina Faso entered a period of political instability, marked by coups, military regimes, and civil unrest. During this time, France played a significant role in Burkina Faso’s political affairs, supporting various regimes and exerting its influence on the country’s economic policies. This led to the emergence of neocolonialism, where France maintained its grip on Burkina Faso’s political and economic systems, despite the country’s formal independence.
Poor Christian country has anti homosexual laws? Well it didn't break free from colonialism then!
It's a majority Muslim country that did not have these laws prior to independence...
I read in the comments it was Christian so that sounded plausible along with it being in West Africa but you're right.
Still doesn't change the fact that a poor society which just broke free from Western colonialism is not magically going to implement all the values of those who colonized them. Not everything is three steps forward zero steps back.
But pinkwashing remains the favorite Liberal stick to hit colonized people with.
I'm glad you agree that the homophobic regression didn't come from western colonialism?
It depends what year and place we're talking about because before the 1950s it definitely did. But in this case no.
People are quick to forget their gamer word vocabulary from the 2010's but somehow expect every country in the world to be on the same cultural line 15 years later.
I'm sorry, I'm slightly confused. I think we agree? In the ~1950s they were actually far less repressive about LGBTQ issues than France (their colonizers) was, to be clear. That's where the argument comes from that, while the effects of colonialism are responsible for many evils, in this case it appears to be genuine home-grown regression on personal freedoms.
Yes we agree that this wasn't imposed on them by their colonizers. Where we might disagree is that I still believe decolonization is good for Burkina Faso.
Yeah, but it also shows a detachment of both history and political manipulation.
Democracy is not a "nice to have". It's supposed to be a check and a balance on centralized powers.
But the past decades more and more rights - which manifestly is power - is taken away from the citizens of the west and given to either the nation state - or actors within private sector, i.e oligarchies.
The calls for direct democracy is heard across the west, but falls on deaf ears without even further context. So let's take my country of Norway as an example.
In the 90s you could not only vote for a party and the individual representatives of that party, but also individual representatives from other parties. You could basically vote for who you thought was best for each public office.
The liberals and conservatives got rid of that right and now are getting rid of voting for individual candidates. There's an insidious reason for this and that's to "toe the party line" - even though several of the major political parties want the exact same policies.
The liberal will go and be more direct and honest with what they want, whereas the conservatives - who wants the same policies - will keep their mouth shut. The liberal becomes unpopular, the conservatives get into office and enact those policies - and vice versa. It is in many cases a false dichotomy, because there is very little difference between the liberal and the conservative - in all actuality.
The solemn fact is that there is only a few - if even any - liberal, conservative or neo-liberal who believes in democracy. To all of them the "free markets shall reign", in that power should be privatized. It should be subject to think tanks, media engines and optics - because constituents are so stupid that they need to be manipulated in "the right direction".
Their premise of "voting with your wallet" also falls flat, as consumer choices already well studied and directed, as monopolies, duopolies, triopolies, monopsonies and oligopolies span the west. The supply and demand rule explains why. The more you can produce, the more of the supply chain you control, the more costs you can cut per unit. The consumer, having to deal with personal economy, goes for the cheapest option and ipso presto: you have centrally controlled markets.
The politicians, being given insider access to these markets, become subject of lobbyists, well wishers and gift givers, who help to nudge policies "in the right direction". This in turn leads to a conflict of interest mountain that soars ever higher by each year. The elite play together, pray together, slay together and tut tut each other only when faced with a camera. They have goals, they have agendas, they have closed door meetings - as well as large grandiose get togethers.
Western politicians therefore largely pay lip service to democracy in front of podiums and audiences, but will let slip through interviews, associations and quotes that it is more of a burden to them - and it shows in their legislatures and approach. You're supposed to "watch what a politicians does, not listen to what they say" - but both are acts, and if not in lock step shows clear signs of corruption.
In short: we've allowed the fox to watch the hen house and have only a few chickens left. Democracy has been weakened and is weakened still by each year. But it's not because western politicians are so evil. It's because they are literally brainwashed. They've groomed each other in a twisted world view predicated solely upon ideological fancies. They drink their own KoolAid and they want all of us to wear the jogging suit to drink with them.
Western liberalism & conservatism is a cult. They truly do believe their "economic sciences", which to them is scripture - but is merely economic mysticism draped in acedemic language. Their idols, Raegen and Thatcher, the oligarchs and "wealth creators", stabbing the tax sack with a knife called "New Public Management" to let their friends soak up the revenue. The creators of symbolic economy, symbolic politics, symbolic laws, all to fool you into thinking they are credible candidates - while wasting time, money and lives. Public good is nothing but a prospect to them.
Our political system has been gamed so much that the terms "liberal" and "conservative" have lost all meaning, for they are invariably the same ilk. The liberal, the conservative and the neo liberal are the ones weakening the west, has been killing the west - for decades. Our democracy, our industries, our economies, our financing. It's all subject to their games and whims.
We sacrificed our democracy at the alter of a supposed "free market" - and it's time for revolution. It's time for the people to take the power back from the new aristocracy.
Stop following their talking points, their economic sciences, their sentiments and ideas. Rip off your jogging suit and don't drink from their KoolAid.
It is pure poison for democracy.
"Miller, are you taking notes? I want this in my next speech!" -- Tr*mp, probably
war special military operation with burkina faso in 3… 2… 1…
In the end it's hard to argue for the so called liberal democracy that was often extremely corrupt compared to Thomas Sankara style populism there.
Typical of the Guardian to push the western propaganda bastardized version of what he said.
Another hitpiece by a Western imperialistg outlet because their leader kicked out all the occupiers
The guardian is a Western source allied with France view of the world. To truly understand what he said we'd need to be living in a context where western ideals aren't a given. The history of this country is just suffering no matter what. He may be worse than the colonist but it's their right to govern themselves as they see fit. Democracy can also bring you fascists who have no care for the population as we are all experiencing.
Democracy can bring you fascists, but autocracy rarely works well for the people at all. The whole point of democracy is that the fucking people being ruled get a say. The moment you say that's inherently not fit for some group of people, you're denying them the right to say otherwise for themselves.
I'm not anti democracy I just think a version of this ideals already showed up in that society with Sankara and he got murdered. I think the forces of democracy actually end up backfiring and the victims become anti democratic given the violent way they're "democratized" also France has taken advantage of Burkina Faso for so many years by imposing the euro to their economy at fixed rates, and robbing their gold. At this point, they have tried the western ways, and the only thing that's truly stupid is trying something twice that you know doesn't work for you.
and he is right. Western liberal democracy is cancer
Fair enough. Let's start by ignoring your opinion.
Which system do you prefer instead?
One party system where there is a vanguard party and elections are on policy and not culture wars
Democracy was “false”, the 37-year-old said, adding: “Democracy, we kill children. Democracy, we drop bombs, we kill women, we destroy hospitals, we kill civilian population. Is that democracy?”
all 60 comments