The history of authoritarian regimes is marked by a paradox as old as power itself: the very tools of repression designed to silence opponents eventually turn inward, consuming those who once wielded them. Burkina Faso, under the leadership of Captain Ibrahim Traoré, is now experiencing this dynamic firsthand. Over recent months, arbitrary arrests, enforced disappearances reported by multiple human rights groups, smear campaigns, intimidation summons, media restrictions, and the conscription of citizens under the banner of national defense have extended beyond traditional critics. Today, Muslim community leaders, civil society activists, commentators, influencers, and opinion makers—once identified as steadfast supporters of the transition—are discovering the harsh reality that loyalty offers no guarantee of safety in a system where power brooks no dissent.

From loyalty to suspicion: the erosion of trust in a centralized system

The current shift is not a series of isolated incidents but a profound transformation in how power operates. As the regime consolidates decision-making authority, suppresses avenues for dissent, and equates criticism with a direct threat to the state, suspicion becomes the defining principle of governance. In this environment, the line between ally and adversary blurs. What matters is not past loyalty, but unconditional obedience in the present.

Ibrahim Traoré’s rise to power has been built on a nationalist, sovereign, and security-focused narrative. This message, amplified across social media by a network of supporters, frames any critique as a destabilization plot orchestrated by foreign forces, political opponents, or so-called enemies of the nation.

Under this influence, many public figures have participated by rationalizing the regime’s actions. Arbitrary detentions were framed as security imperatives. Disappearances of outspoken critics were downplayed. Closures of foreign and domestic media were celebrated as acts of sovereignty. Summons of journalists, lawyers, judges, and political figures were sometimes applauded in the name of national mobilization against terrorism.

This gradual normalization of exceptional measures has reshaped public discourse. Nuance has vanished, replaced by a stark binary: total support for Ibrahim Traoré or immediate labeling as an accomplice of the enemy. In such a climate, questioning authority is no longer seen as a democratic right but as a political betrayal.

Personalized power and the expanding web of suspicion

A defining feature of Burkina Faso’s transition is the intense personalization of power around Captain Ibrahim Traoré. Public debate has increasingly centered not on policy substance but on the defense of the head of state himself. In this context, challenging a government decision is often interpreted as a personal challenge to his authority.

This personalization nurtures a climate of perpetual suspicion. As security challenges persist, the search for internal scapegoats intensifies. Military setbacks, recurring terrorist attacks, economic strains, social tensions, and international criticism fuel a narrative in which difficulties are attributed not to policy failures but to hidden conspiracies.

This pattern is familiar in authoritarian systems: the circle of suspect individuals expands relentlessly. First come political opponents. Then independent journalists, human rights defenders, judges, academics, religious leaders—and finally, former allies whose influence is deemed excessive or insufficiently aligned with the official line.

In a system where loyalty must be constantly reaffirmed, no one can be certain of remaining in the regime’s favor indefinitely.

Fear as a governing tool: the psychological toll of repression

The repeated use of highly publicized arrests, intimidation summons, social media smear campaigns, threats of conscription, and administrative sanctions serves a dual purpose: to neutralize specific individuals and to send a chilling message to society at large.

Each arrest becomes a warning. Each unexplained disappearance fuels fear. Each summons reinforces the idea that no one is beyond reach. Each spectacular conscription sends a signal that coercive measures can be applied to anyone deemed inconvenient.

This strategy fosters widespread self-censorship. Intellectuals hesitate before publishing. Journalists scale back investigations. Religious leaders soften their sermons. Citizens avoid public debate. A society governed by fear gradually loses its capacity to innovate, correct mistakes, and build collective solutions.

The fading of checks and balances

This trend is especially concerning in a context where key oversight institutions appear weakened. The independence of the judiciary is increasingly questioned, with procedures often appearing politically motivated rather than legally grounded. Independent media face restrictions or suspensions that shrink pluralism. Civil society organizations operate in an ever-shrinking space. Political parties function under severe constraints in the name of the transition.

When no institution can effectively check executive power, citizen protections become fragile. The law no longer limits authority; instead, power limits itself according to its own shifting calculations.

A universal lesson from political history

Burkina Faso is not alone in experiencing this phenomenon. History shows that regimes built on concentrated power often follow a similar trajectory.

Revolutionaries eliminate former comrades. Military leaders grow suspicious of their own officers. Political movements expel their founders. Ideologues are accused of betrayal. This pattern arises from a simple logic: when loyalty to a leader becomes the primary criterion for political survival, no level of devotion is ever sufficient. Loyalty must be constantly proven. This relentless pursuit of ideological purity inevitably leads to purges, exclusions, and accusations.

Fundamental rights are not privileges.

The current evolution underscores a fundamental truth: public freedoms cannot be defended only when they benefit one’s own side. The right to a fair trial, freedom of expression, press freedom, the presumption of innocence, and protection from arbitrary detention or enforced disappearance are not rewards granted to loyal citizens. They are universal guarantees designed to protect everyone against abuses of power.

Applauding the arbitrary arrest of an opponent is to accept the principle of arbitrariness itself. Once this logic takes hold, it can be applied to anyone. Injustice does not change in nature based on the identity of its victim.

Many of Ibrahim Traoré’s former supporters made a critical error: they believed their closeness to power would ensure lasting protection. Yet in authoritarian systems, loyalty is not a contract. It is a precarious relationship, constantly reassessed based on shifting interests.

Security cannot justify every excess

Burkina Faso faces a real and urgent terrorist threat that demands a strong state response. This reality is beyond dispute.

However, the effectiveness of counterterrorism cannot be measured solely by the volume of coercive measures. It also depends on the trust between citizens and their institutions. When people fear arbitrary decisions more than they trust state protection, that trust erodes.

History shows that no lasting victory over insurgency can be achieved if institutions lose credibility with those they are meant to serve. Security and the rule of law are not opposing goals; they are complementary. A state that combats terrorism while upholding legal standards strengthens its legitimacy. Conversely, when emergency measures become permanent, there is a grave risk of turning the fight against the enemy into a justification for generalized social control.

When the system consumes its own supporters

The difficulties now faced by figures once considered regime allies highlight a broader political reality. In a system where institutions are weakened and power relies primarily on fear, no one enjoys lasting protection.

Today’s allies may become tomorrow’s suspects. Fervent defenders may be accused of insufficient loyalty. Communication allies may be sidelined. Religious leaders may be reprimanded if their messages stray from the official line.

The water ultimately douses the one who once wielded the hose.

Beyond individual fates, however, it is the entire society that bears the cost. When a regime extends suspicion even to its own supporters, it reveals that the problem lies not in individuals, but in the system itself. The true safeguard of a nation rests not in proximity to the head of state or ideological alignment, but in strong institutions, an independent judiciary, a free press, and laws applied equally to all. Only within such a framework can the fight against security challenges preserve both state authority and citizen freedoms.