Thomas Sankara and Burkina Faso's 'Black Spring'
Ernest Tate writes that Thomas Sankara and Burkina Faso's 'Black Spring'.
Periodic crises and political instability followed by military coups seems to have been permanent features of political life of the country after formal independence began in 1960. Still under the influence of Paris, the first post-colonial regime had been unwilling or unable to deal with the country's immense social and economic problems, leading to mass unrest, labour and student strikes and of course, a military coup.
As a result of the coup, Harsch writes, the army's popularity had increased and came to be seen by many young intellectuals as a possible instrument for social change, a “potential modernizing institution that might help discipline the corrupt bureaucracy, counter-balance the inordinate influence of the traditional chiefs, and generally help modernize the county”.
It was in military college that Sankara came under the direct ideological influence of the college's director, the Marxist academic Adam Toure, a clandestine member of the pro-Moscow African Independence Party that was centred in Senegal, with branches in other former French colonies. It would turn out to be an important step in the future president's political evolution. Keeping his political affiliations hidden in those conservative circumstances, Toure quietly gathered together — outside the classroom — his brightest and most politically inclined students – among them Sankara — for informal discussions on topics such as, “imperialism and neo-colonialism, socialism and communism, the Soviet and Chinese revolutions, the liberation movements in Africa, and similar topics”. (Toure would later serve in Sankara's government as minister of information, only to be jailed for two years in 1984 because of his oppositional activities. He was nearly shot, only being saved because of Sankara's personal intervention.)
Emphasis Mine
It is interesting to compare and contrast the political development of Hugo Charvez and Thomas Sankara.
Both of them became radicalised through their respective military colleges. The Venezuelan one was overt in its radical agenda and it was based deeply on the country's struggle for independence. Thus the whole class was exposured to these ideas. Thus, the Venezuelan military aligns itself with the Bolivarian Revolution.
The Upper Voltan one had to be secretative. Thus, there was a split in the officer corps that was fatal to the revolutionary regime later on.
The Venezuelan coup failed. This forced Chaverz and others to rethink their strategy, and to end up in the political arena to spread their ideas there instead of forcing people to accept them. By entering into the democratic process, Chaverz gained legitimacy that he used to launch his radical agenda. And this legitimacy has enabled the revolution to survive a coup.
The Upper Voltan coup succeeded. This meant that Sankara did not need to rely on the political process to implement his radical agenda. This destroyed his legitimacy and, eventually, got him killed.
However, both Chaverz and Sankara leave a legacy that continues to inspire their followers to radicalism.
Read more!
