Traore Playbook: Populist Legitimacy in the Age of Military Coups

The Crisis of Burkinabe Democracy

Burkina Faso has, over the past decade, emerged as a growing epicentre of terrorist activity in the Sahel. Labeled a regional beacon of democracy in the past, the West African country has since then spiraled into a continuous cycle of violence, leading to a de facto failed state status. For the last five years, it has ranked among the two countries most affected by terrorism in the Global Terrorism Index, with reports estimating at least 6,000 civilian deaths in 2024 alone. 

Burkina’s charismatic young leader, Ibrahim Traore, who rose to prominence through a palace coup in 2022, has, despite major failures, managed to hold onto power and maintain relative popularity amongst the population. Afrobarometer data indicate that 66% of Burkinabe now accept military rule, up from just 24% in 2012, raising a fundamental question about the source of the junta’s appeal. A prominent African research center describes Traore’s leadership style as a new wave of Africa’s military populism that appears to be on the rise not only in Burkina, but across some of the continent’s most volatile conflict zones. Examining Traore’s domestic standing through the prism of populism may thus help understand the nature of the junta’s legitimacy. 

Background to Burkina’s Military Coups 

To understand the current situation, it is important to track social and political developments that led to it. By the end of 2021, Burkina was ruled by one of its few democratically elected heads of state, Roch Kabore, who faced a combined threat of growing jihadist groups and internal opposition within the military. This was compounded by public discontent with governmental policies that failed to reverse the deteriorating security trends and propel economic growth. In January 2022, Colonel Paul-Henri Damiba made the first move, overthrowing Kabore and installing himself as the head of a new military government. Damiba argued that Kabore’s government was corrupt and ineffective, and the mounting insecurity demanded decisive military leadership. 

His rule, however, proved to be short-lived. After only eight months, in September 2022, a lower-ranked captain, Ibrahim Traore, launched a second coup that brought down the country’s government. Traore spoke of Damiba’s inability to resolve the mounting challenges and unwillingness to implement the necessary reforms, which, in turn, demanded a decisive change. The young captain found himself in a unique position. As a lower-rank military officer, he was able to distance himself from failures of the past, providing an opportunity to gain more popular support. In essence, he emerged as a genuine anti-establishment figure and was received extremely positively by a population fatigued by endless violence and corruption. Initially, Traore promised that the new junta would only govern during the transition phase set to end by July 2024; but he did not live up to expectations, and in May 2024, extended military rule by five more years. 

Several important developments have occurred under Traore’s leadership. First, Burkina made a fundamental turn in its foreign policy. France, which had been involved in fighting terrorist groups inside the country since 2013 through Operation Barkhane, quickly became a key opponent of the new regime. Traore labeled French forces as imperialists and ordered them out. The withdrawal was formalized by February 2023, officially ending decades of partnership between Paris and Ouagadougou.

Second, Traore began investing in irregular armed forces on an unprecedented scale, the so-called Volontaires pour la Défense de la Patrie (VDP). These groups now serve as a civil defence force and have become a prominent part of the state security apparatus. Traore explained his decision as a way of giving power back to the citizens, which, while popular, did not produce tangible results. 

After the first 18 months of Traore’s rule, violence increased by 46%. According to estimates from 2025, the central government controlled only up to 50% of the country, with the remainder under the rule of terrorist militias. On top of this, freedom of expression remains suppressed as the junta relies heavily on state-sponsored resources as well as Russian information networks. 

Discourse Analysis

An examination of Traore’s discourse and narrative can explain how, despite his inability to deliver on promises, he continues to mobilise support for his personalistic leadership. Based on a sample of official speeches, the analysis shows that Traore’s discourse follows a thin-centred ideological definition of populism. He does not emphasise the division between the political left and right, nor does he offer any strong economic foundation for his policies. Instead, Traore makes a moral argument regarding the purity of the Burkinabe people suffering at the hands of corrupt elites. 

The “people” in his rhetoric are not associated with a specific ethnicity or class, but are instead defined by means of virtue. For instance, he often acknowledges the immense “sacrifice” the people are making, which, for him, is the highest measure of patriotism. A signature element is his consistent framing of the VDPs as the embodiment of the people’s will, volunteer civilian fighters who, unlike the corrupt political class, have chosen sacrifice over submission. Appearing across multiple speeches, this narrative grounds the abstract category of the people in a concrete, visible institution, while simultaneously legitimising irregular armed mobilisation as a popular rather than a state-imposed practice.

Meanwhile, Traore’s definition of the “elites” can be understood on two levels. First, there are external enemies, such as France, Western institutions, and pro-Western African countries. They are seen as those responsible for terrorist activity and the primary antagonists faced by the Burkinabe people. Given the history of Burkina, his usage of this narrative to leverage deep social wounds is hardly surprising. French popularity had been on the decline even before he rose to power, and taking a radical stance allows him to gain supporters amongst those with a strong sense of anger and resentment.

Second, there are the internal enemies, represented by politicians, civil servants, and regular citizens who have supposedly betrayed the nation. They are framed as those who had a choice and still sided with the enemy. In one instance, Traore referred to opponents of his regime as “genetic slaves” who follow the orders of imperialists. Such rhetoric moves far beyond politics and into a broader moral framing, where anti-governmental forces are labeled as those incapable of acting on their own free will. 

In the absence of electoral legitimacy, Traore’s decision to construct a narrative of virtuous people suffering at the hands of immoral imperialist enemies allows him to mobilise popular support without loosening his authoritarian grip. He creates a logical chain of evidence, where economic underdevelopment, jihadist insurgency, and food shortages are linked to the same overarching antagonist. It allows him to broaden the coalition and include multiple social groups that have all, to some extent, experienced insecurity or violence in their lives. Additionally, it further isolates those who opposed the regime. 

Through his discourse, Traore also diminishes the value of a democratic system and the rule of law. He makes an argument that it is only a disguise for imperial rule, since those elected are merely “lackeys” of foreign governments. Given such views, the Burkinabe justice system has also largely been dismantled. “If a bad decision is taken,” for instance, by a judge, “we will not allow the decision to be executed,” Traore said in his address to the national forces, signaling a complete repudiation of the independent judiciary. Through this rhetoric, Traore aims to shape public opinion against the very idea of having democratic elections. 

Under conditions where electoral legitimacy is unavailable, Traore’s decision to construct a narrative of virtuous people suffering at the hands of immoral imperialist enemies allows him to mobilise popular support without the need to loosen authoritarian grip. He constructs a logical chain of evidence, where economic underdevelopment, jihadist insurgency, and food shortages are linked to the same overarching antagonist. It allows him to broaden the coalition and include multiple social groups that have all, to some extent, experienced insecurity or violence in their lives. Additionally, it tightens the opposition to those who are against the regime. 

Through his discourse, Traore also diminishes the value of a democratic system and the rule of law. He makes an argument that it is only a disguise for imperial rule, since those being elected are “lackeys” of the foreign governments. Given such views, the Burkinabe justice system has also been all but dismantled. “If a bad decision is taken,” for instance, by a judge, “we will not allow the decision to be executed,” Traore said in his address to the national forces, signaling a complete repudiation of the independent judiciary. Traore aims to condition the public opinion and antagonise the people against the very idea of having democratic elections. 

Conclusion: Populism as a Surrogate for Electoral Legitimacy

The analysis of Traore’s rhetoric points to the populist nature of his leadership, which functions as a substitute for legitimacy in the absence of an electoral mandate. Without legitimacy derived from elections, Traore instead generates it with his discourse and political actions. He does not present himself or his policies as part of any elaborate ideological doctrine but rather seizes political opportunities at hand. His position remains thin-centered and aims to exploit existing Burkinabe social fault lines and vulnerabilities, using populism as a strategic choice. His discourse reflects a typical populist framing of the pure people suffering at the hands of corrupt elites. These two groups are presented as homogeneous and differ primarily in their virtues rather than ethnicity or social class. 

The Burkina Faso case offers a window into a wider regional phenomenon. Traore’s resonance across the African continent suggests that the conditions enabling his rise to power, primarily unresolved colonial grievances, weak institutional legitimacy, and a security crisis, are not unique to his own borders. For the future, it paints an unsettling picture, where the appearance of military populists similar to Traore might become a growing trend. 

Open Questions to Consider 

1. How does Traore’s populist playbook compare to other military governments in the region? 
2. What is the future of African democracy given the increase in the popularity of military rule? 
3. What does Traore’s rise tell us about the successes and failures of Western-led initiatives in the region? 

Further readings 

• Abdoul Karim Saidou and Lauren Honig, “Legitimising regimes and legalising self-defence groups: the case of Burkina Faso’s VDPs,” The Journal of Modern African Studies, 2025
• Folahanmi Aina, “Ibrahim Traore: Burkina Faso’s saviour, dictator or revolutionary anti-imperialist,” Small Wars & Insurgencies, 2026
• International Crisis Group, “Burkina Faso: Arming Civilians at the Cost of Social Cohesion?” ICC, 2023