Military Transitions in Africa: A Narrow Corridor Between Reform and Regression

Military coups have long been a feature of Africa's political landscape, but recent years have seen a resurgence of military-led transitions in Sub-Saharan Africa. From Mali and Burkina Faso to Guinea, Niger, Chad, and Gabon several countries are currently governed by military juntas, many of which came to power claiming to restore stability and initiate reforms after civilian governments failed to address crises such as terrorism, corruption, and political instability. The ongoing debate between the merits of military regimes versus civilian rule is as polarized as ever, with one camp asserting that military rulers can implement difficult reforms swiftly, while the other warns of the dangers of autocratic governance, corruption, and the erosion of democracy.

As a concerned citizen of one of these countries, below I provide a framework for understanding the current military-led transitions in Africa, considering both the potential risks and possible benefits of these regimes, while emphasizing the importance of monitoring progress based on factual outcomes rather than ideological assumptions.

The Debate: Military Rule vs. Civilian Governance

On one side of the debate, some argue that military regimes, unencumbered by electoral politics, can make bold decisions to address security and economic challenges without fear of backlash. Proponents point to cases like Burkina Faso and Mali, where military leaders took power after civilian governments failed to contain rising jihadist insurgencies. In Guinea, the military took power after a constitutional amendment by President Alpha Condé in 2020 to be re-elected for a third term eroded the political and social climate. The recent experience in Gabon followed contested elections. In these contexts, the military is often viewed as a stabilizing force that can restore order, reform inefficient institutions, and lay the groundwork for future democratic transitions.

However, critics warn that military regimes are rarely the solution. They highlight the risk of power entrenchment, where military leaders extend their rule indefinitely under the pretext of managing ongoing crises. Furthermore, military rule often comes with repression of civil liberties, restrictions on free speech, and the dismantling of democratic institutions, making it harder to return to civilian governance. The risk of corruption and mismanagement also looms large, as military officials—lacking experience in governance—often struggle to manage complex civilian bureaucracies, leaving them vulnerable to exploitation by opportunistic actors.

A Framework for Evaluating Military Transitions

Given the complexities of military transitions, a structured approach is necessary to evaluate each case on its own merits. Every country’s context is unique, and it is crucial to assess the regime’s actions rather than generalize based on ideology.

Why It Can Go Wrong: Risks of Military-Led Transitions

1. Prolonged Rule and Power Entrenchment: Many military regimes in Africa have shown a tendency to extend their rule beyond initially promised timelines. Leaders often argue that the situation is not stable enough for a return to civilian rule, as seen in Burkina Faso and Mali, where the transition periods have been extended repeatedly. In Guinea, the end of the transition is expected by the end of 2024; however, there are uncertainties. This delay risks turning transitional governance into a permanent fixture, with military leaders embedding themselves in power. Moreover, in Chad, the junta leader was elected president in the most recent elections.
2. Erosion of Democratic Institutions: Military regimes tend to weaken or dissolve democratic institutions such as political parties, the judiciary, and electoral commissions. The repression of political militants and opposition parties further destabilizes the political landscape, making it difficult to re-establish democratic governance post-transition.
3. Suppression of Free Speech and Civil Society: Free speech and press freedoms often face severe restrictions under military regimes. In countries like Guinea and Chad, media outlets have been censored, and civil society organizations (CSOs) have faced repression. This suppression curtails public discourse, limits accountability, and allows corruption to flourish unchecked.
4. Economic Mismanagement and Corruption: Military officials often lack the experience necessary to manage civilian economies. This leads to economic mismanagement, where public resources are misallocated, and corruption becomes entrenched. For example, security and military budgets often receive disproportionate funding, while critical sectors like health and education suffer neglect.
5. Social Exclusion and Human Rights Violations: Military regimes are often guilty of excluding large sections of the population from political and economic life. This exclusion exacerbates social inequalities, and the suppression of dissent leads to widespread human rights violations. In many cases, these regimes arrest opposition figures, stifle protests, and limit political participation.

Why It Can Turn Good: Potential Benefits of Military Transitions

1. Capacity for Rapid Reforms: Military regimes can make decisions quickly, without the constraints of electoral politics. This can be beneficial in situations where immediate action is needed, such as economic reforms, and tax restructuring. In Guinea for example, the military regime has demonstrated a strong capacity for rapid reforms, capitalizing on its ability to make swift decisions unencumbered by electoral politics. This has been particularly advantageous in maintaining macroeconomic stability. The Guinea’s relatively high 2023 Country Policy and Institutional Assessment (CPIA) scores—4.0 in fiscal policy and 3.8 in monetary policy—reflect the junta’s success in controlling inflation, managing public debt, and maintaining external balances, all of which are critical for sustaining economic stability and investor confidence. Furthermore, the junta’s prudent debt management, with a CPIA score of 3.5, illustrates responsible fiscal stewardship, ensuring Guinea avoids debt distress and remains financially solvent throughout the transition period.
2. Bold Economic Reforms - Mining Sector Initiatives by African Juntas: In Guinea, the military junta took bold steps to revive the Simandou iron ore project, one of the world's largest untapped deposits, which had been stalled due to governance issues. By renegotiating contracts and asserting state control, the junta aims to drive economic growth, create jobs, and boost national revenues. Success depends on ensuring transparency and equitable distribution of benefits. In Niger, the junta revoked the French firm Orano’s uranium mining license for the Imouraren mine, reflecting a move toward resource nationalism. As one of the world’s top uranium producers, Niger aims to retain a larger share of the profits from this strategic resource, which is crucial for the European energy market. In Mali and Burkina Faso, the juntas have focused on renegotiating gold mining contracts and formalizing artisanal mining, respectively. These reforms seek to increase state revenue, secure local ownership, and ensure that resource wealth is more evenly distributed across the population. Across these nations, military-led regimes are leveraging mining reforms to boost economic independence. However, the long-term success of these initiatives will depend on governance, transparency, and equitable resource management.
3. Restoring Order and Security: In countries plagued by internal conflicts and terrorism, military regimes may be able to stabilize the situation more effectively than civilian governments. For instance, in Mali and Burkina Faso, the military took power to address the government’s failure to contain rising jihadist insurgencies, and many citizens initially welcomed the coups, hoping for stronger security measures.
4. Focus on Infrastructure Development: Military regimes often prioritize infrastructure development as a way to stimulate the economy and enhance connectivity. Large-scale projects, such as the construction of roads, bridges, and energy infrastructure, can help lay the foundation for long-term economic growth. These projects can also serve as visible indicators of progress to the population, providing legitimacy to the regime’s rule.
5. Anti-Corruption Initiatives: Military regimes can, at least initially, present themselves as clean alternatives to corrupt civilian administrations. Some regimes, such as the one in Guinea, have launched anti-corruption campaigns aimed at addressing graft and improving government accountability. The success of these campaigns, however, depends on their impartiality and whether they target systemic corruption rather than just political opponents.

The Risk of Prolonged Military Rule

A significant risk in many African military transitions is the prolongation of the transitional period. Leaders in countries like Mali and Burkina Faso have repeatedly extended transition timelines, citing security concerns or unresolved governance issues. The longer military leaders remain in power, the more difficult it becomes to return to civilian rule. These leaders may attempt to legitimize their rule by holding elections where they themselves participate, as was the case in Chad after the death of President Idriss Déby, where his son, Mahamat Idriss Déby, took power. Similarly, rumors in Guinea suggest that Mamady Doumbouya will run as a candidate in the upcoming presidential elections, contrary to the transitional charter. This raises concerns that military rulers may use transitional periods to consolidate their power rather than preparing for a genuine handover to civilian authorities. The risk of power entrenchment is particularly high when security remains fragile, as leaders can claim that their continued rule is necessary to ensure stability.

The Need for Continuous Monitoring

Each military-led transition should be monitored continuously and assessed based on factual outcomes, not merely promises. Regional organizations like ECOWAS and the African Union play critical roles in overseeing transitions and applying diplomatic pressure to ensure military regimes adhere to their commitments. International actors, together with domestic civil society, must remain vigilant, closely tracking the progress of military rulers in combating corruption, enhancing security, and organizing free and fair elections.

In conclusion, military transitions in Africa remain a double-edged sword—offering the potential for short-term stability and reform but also the risk of entrenched authoritarianism, corruption, and the erosion of democratic institutions. The ultimate outcome of these transitions will depend not only on the actions of the regime but also on its willingness to relinquish power when the time comes. It is equally important to carefully weigh the costs and benefits of transitions, ensuring a clear distinction between the specific political, administrative, economic, and social costs of the transition itself, and comparing these with the associated advantages. However, the real test lies in the collective action of citizens—their mobilization, strength, and courage—to hold military governments accountable. Continuous and active citizen engagement, alongside international scrutiny, is crucial to ensure these transitions pave the way for true democratic and developmental progress.

?Annex: Evaluation Framework for Military Transitions in Africa