What we lose when we are told to forget about Democracy
When a leader asks the nation to forget about democracy, it signals that liberty will be deprioritized as well.
This week, during an interview, Burkina Faso’s military ruler Ibrahim Traoré asked the nation to forget about democracy, claiming that it creates chaos in the country. If we consider this statement more closely, such statements are not always solely about protecting the nation but may also serve to reinforce the power and authority of leadership.
He claims that eliminating democracy is for the nation’s welfare and protection, but if we review developments since 2022, a significant level of disruption has been reported. Over 1,800 civilians have been killed since 2023. Election, a basic platform where people can exercise their liberty, has been eliminated with a statement, “Security first, politics later”. More than 100 political parties have been dissolved. The assets of those parties have been seized. Parliament, which is a symbol of representation of the country, is not functioning anymore. The entire region became unsafe. These are not decisions taken at once. They occur through a pattern. People are initially informed that the country is going through a crisis and are encouraged to trust their leaders for protection, shifting people’s main concern to safety while snatching their liberty silently.
When Ibrahim Traoré came to power in 2022, he declared an emergency in the state, stating that the country was facing security challenges and that urgent action was necessary. While emergency measures were presented as temporary steps to protect the state, some people view them as having had an impact on civil freedoms within the country.
He has been reported by some organizations, including groups such as Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, as carrying out arrests without charges, as well as allegations of enforced disappearances and civilian deaths during military and security operations. There have also been concerns raised in some reports and analyses about the independence of the judiciary, which is known to be the only institution of the country that works independently and makes decisions without government intervention or any other external pressure.
This pattern is not unique to Burkina Faso. History offers several examples of leaders justifying the suspension or limitation of democratic systems in the name of stability.
Germany and Italy are to be quoted here; Adolf Hitler took over when the country was going through economic and political instability. Emergency powers and restrictions on civil liberties followed, weakening democratic institutions. In a similar manner, Italy was facing instability after World War 1. Benito Mussolini took power and promised that he would restore economic and political stability. Over time, opposition parties were suppressed, the media and elections were controlled, and hence the democratic structures diminished. Evidently, the common justification is often stability first. Yet, the outcome frequently involves the reduction of political competition, checks on institutions, and diminished public accountability.
At its core, democracy is more than just electoral processes. It’s a system that allows questioning, criticism, and institutional limits on authority. When it is suspended or weakened, these mechanisms are also compromised. When democracy is framed as something that can be set aside, the question becomes not only what replaces it but also what gradually erodes in the process.
Over time, this change does not always happen through direct force. More often, it occurs gradually, through repeated normalization of emergency rule and shrinking political space. In this way, democracy doesn’t necessarily disappear at all at once.
It can erode slowly through incremental changes, starting as temporary measures and becoming more entrenched over time.