When Democracy Doesn’t Deliver: Lessons from Burkina Faso

I have closely followed public reactions to Captain Ibrahim Traoré's leadership in Burkina Faso. Responses range from enthusiastic support to cautious skepticism and vocal criticism.

In the past two years, Burkina Faso's GDP has reportedly grown by about 18%. Traoré’s government has rejected loans from the IMF and World Bank. They have cut salaries for ministers and parliamentarians by 30%. At the same time, civil servant pay has increased by 50%.

His administration has cleared domestic debt arrears. They established two tomato processing plants to create jobs and reduce imports. A modern gold refinery was inaugurated to add value and decrease raw mineral exports. The country also launched its second cotton processing facility.

Additionally, they created the first National Support Centre for Artisanal Cotton Processing. This center aims to assist smallholder producers. Agricultural output has significantly increased, and infrastructure projects are underway, including road upgrades and a new airport.

Given these developments, public admiration seems understandable. However, this situation raises important questions about governance. It also examines the link between democracy and development.

Liberal democracy is often seen as the best political system. Its legitimacy depends on delivering real improvements in people's lives. As Amartya Sen stated, “A country does not have to be deemed fit for democracy; it must become fit through democracy.” When democracy means only periodic elections with little accountability, citizens may question its value.

The events in Burkina Faso show that people want more than just democratic processes. They seek effective leadership that tackles poverty, inequality, and underdevelopment. Philosopher John Dewey noted that “democracy is more than a form of government; it is primarily a mode of associated living.” When this mode fails to provide livelihoods or dignity, its foundations weaken.

The key lesson here is simple: people do not eat democracy. Governance should be judged by its ability to improve lives.

If democratic systems serve only elite interests while impoverishing many, we risk undermining institutions and democratic legitimacy itself. History shows that a gap between democratic ideals and material deprivation can lead to disillusionment—and instability.

The author of this article is FM Dzanku, a Development Economist at ISSER, University of Ghana.