As you aptly summarize, there is a gap between the idealized and actual Sankara legacy. Great article. I didn’t know half of these things. I wonder how many Burkinabés are aware of this and to what extent. And what this means for the comparisons between Sankara and the current Junta leader. Looking forward to the next posts in this series!
Most older Burkinabe that I have met and interviewed that lived in that era remember the good and bad. The 10M trees, the one year of free rent, vaccinations, the failed railroad projects, and remember the drought. The Burkinabe businessmen I know weren't fans of Sankara.
The Burkinabe Youth that I know tend to be more idealistic and Pan-African. They tend to suppress the bad & mistakes and exaggerate the good. But its not complete reverence, they acknowledge the union suppression and democracy suppression.
I know a few people (me before reading this informative post) who have complete reverence for Sankara. Albeit, I still believe he’s one of the best leaders we’ve ever had on the continent. But I also should’ve known that his claimed accomplishments executed within 5 years were inflated
I like the goal of Pan-Africanism, but so far its very divorced from geopolitical realities.
Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo hate each other.
Uganda and Democratic Republic of Congo dislike each other.
Algeria and Morocco hate each other.
The African Union sees Morocco as Israel, and Western Sahara as Palestine.
Ethiopia and Somalia hate each other.
Kenya and Somalia dislike each other.
Ethiopia and Egypt dislike each other.
Benin and Niger dislike each other.
Chad and Sudan dislike each other.
West Africa has Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali have their own entente away from the rest of West Africa.
The regional trade blocs except the Southern African one barely trade with each other. If the African Union had some real bones, I would be more Pan-Africanist, but so far it doesn't. I am more of a pragmatist than an idealist when it comes to Africa.
I'll use Southern Africa as an example. The textile supply chain between South Africa and its enclaves Lesotho & Eswatini shows regional economic integration and collaboration in the Southern African Customs Union.
Both Lesotho and Eswatini import raw materials, fabrics, and other inputs from South Africa, leveraging its infrastructure. Finished textile products from Lesotho and Eswatini often find markets in South Africa or abroad.
Lesotho and Eswatini wouldn't be able to make shirts and suits without South Africa. It would be cool if there could be more of that, but Southern Africa is very unique.
I understand the reasons why one would want trade deals in Africa. We have trade deals and integrated supply chains in Asia but there is no such thing as Pan Asianism (or at least it immediately died after 1950s).
Nice and balanced. I lived in Burkina Faso in the 70s and kept an eye on it ever since. One facet of Sankara's rule was an ideological mobilization that was more scary than inspiring - travelling through Burkina Faso at the time seeing teenage soldiers at roadblocks, talking anti imperialist slogans... not a good feeling. From hearsay, his Cuban advisor perfecting the more unsavory facets of military rule (detention, torture), also not so great. Again from hearsay, most Burkinabés sighed a sigh of relief under their breath once he was gone.
Sankara exemplifies the tragedy of so many revolutionary leaders. A powerful vision and ideals but actual execution on the ground almost never matching the rhetoric, leading to oppression or a coup. It does seem that Sankara was more pragmatic than many other leaders in his willingness to accept aid and shift to more pro-market policies. Do you think there was much he could've done differently?
Sankara's poor relationships with other African leaders, with the exception of Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, also raise questions about his pragmatism.
I think if Sankara was still around, he would have turned out basically exactly like Rawlings. Rawlings was a fellow leftist who transitioned from a populist one-party state to a neoliberal multiparty democrat over his 20-year rule, but Ghanaians were poorer when he left office than when he took power. I think that's what Sankara more or less would have had as well. If he stayed until 2014, like Compaore, at least he could have rode the wave of an international commodity boom.
The devastating impact of the international commodity crunch and African Debt Crisis in the 1980s and 1990s overwhelmed most African leaders, regardless of their ideology, and it's unlikely that Sankara's presence would have made a significant difference if he were still around.
The notion of pragmatism is subjective, influenced by one's ideological leanings, whether communist, market-oriented, pro-Western, or anti-Western. While Sankara demonstrated pragmatism in addressing his country's financial crisis by drastically cutting spending, he simultaneously showed reluctance to secure an IMF loan, limiting his ability to bolster his finances. Instead, he relied heavily on Western bilateral aid and support from Cuba, North Korea, and China. Eventually America reduced aid, and France was on the cusp of removing aid from Sankara because of his insults. If France removed aid, Burkina Faso would have collapsed especially during the drought.
Sankara's decision to replace communist officials with French advisors could be seen as either pragmatic or a betrayal of his principles. Moreover, his advocacy for loan defaults in an African Union speech seems more ideological than pragmatic, as it would have had minimal impact on lenders' portfolios. Most African countries, including Morocco and Nigeria, had already defaulted on their loans, which were subsequently restructured.
As you aptly summarize, there is a gap between the idealized and actual Sankara legacy. Great article. I didn’t know half of these things. I wonder how many Burkinabés are aware of this and to what extent. And what this means for the comparisons between Sankara and the current Junta leader. Looking forward to the next posts in this series!
Most older Burkinabe that I have met and interviewed that lived in that era remember the good and bad. The 10M trees, the one year of free rent, vaccinations, the failed railroad projects, and remember the drought. The Burkinabe businessmen I know weren't fans of Sankara.
The Burkinabe Youth that I know tend to be more idealistic and Pan-African. They tend to suppress the bad & mistakes and exaggerate the good. But its not complete reverence, they acknowledge the union suppression and democracy suppression.
I know a few people (me before reading this informative post) who have complete reverence for Sankara. Albeit, I still believe he’s one of the best leaders we’ve ever had on the continent. But I also should’ve known that his claimed accomplishments executed within 5 years were inflated
> Sankara's legacy has more symbolism than tangible success.
No wonder he's popular amongst international leftists and Pan-Africanists.
I like the goal of Pan-Africanism, but so far its very divorced from geopolitical realities.
Rwanda and Democratic Republic of Congo hate each other.
Uganda and Democratic Republic of Congo dislike each other.
Algeria and Morocco hate each other.
The African Union sees Morocco as Israel, and Western Sahara as Palestine.
Ethiopia and Somalia hate each other.
Kenya and Somalia dislike each other.
Ethiopia and Egypt dislike each other.
Benin and Niger dislike each other.
Chad and Sudan dislike each other.
West Africa has Niger, Burkina Faso, and Mali have their own entente away from the rest of West Africa.
The regional trade blocs except the Southern African one barely trade with each other. If the African Union had some real bones, I would be more Pan-Africanist, but so far it doesn't. I am more of a pragmatist than an idealist when it comes to Africa.
Why is the goal of Pan Africanism even desirable? Most countries are too big as it is.
To the Pan-Africans who believe in one African country, I think that's not only insane but impossible.
To the Pan-Africans who believe in more interregional trade or more regional supply chains, that is better.
Sure? Trade is a means to an end. I don't see how a regional supply chain in Africa is intrinsically valuable.
I'll use Southern Africa as an example. The textile supply chain between South Africa and its enclaves Lesotho & Eswatini shows regional economic integration and collaboration in the Southern African Customs Union.
Both Lesotho and Eswatini import raw materials, fabrics, and other inputs from South Africa, leveraging its infrastructure. Finished textile products from Lesotho and Eswatini often find markets in South Africa or abroad.
Lesotho and Eswatini wouldn't be able to make shirts and suits without South Africa. It would be cool if there could be more of that, but Southern Africa is very unique.
I understand the reasons why one would want trade deals in Africa. We have trade deals and integrated supply chains in Asia but there is no such thing as Pan Asianism (or at least it immediately died after 1950s).
Nice and balanced. I lived in Burkina Faso in the 70s and kept an eye on it ever since. One facet of Sankara's rule was an ideological mobilization that was more scary than inspiring - travelling through Burkina Faso at the time seeing teenage soldiers at roadblocks, talking anti imperialist slogans... not a good feeling. From hearsay, his Cuban advisor perfecting the more unsavory facets of military rule (detention, torture), also not so great. Again from hearsay, most Burkinabés sighed a sigh of relief under their breath once he was gone.
Sankara exemplifies the tragedy of so many revolutionary leaders. A powerful vision and ideals but actual execution on the ground almost never matching the rhetoric, leading to oppression or a coup. It does seem that Sankara was more pragmatic than many other leaders in his willingness to accept aid and shift to more pro-market policies. Do you think there was much he could've done differently?
Sankara's poor relationships with other African leaders, with the exception of Jerry Rawlings of Ghana, also raise questions about his pragmatism.
I think if Sankara was still around, he would have turned out basically exactly like Rawlings. Rawlings was a fellow leftist who transitioned from a populist one-party state to a neoliberal multiparty democrat over his 20-year rule, but Ghanaians were poorer when he left office than when he took power. I think that's what Sankara more or less would have had as well. If he stayed until 2014, like Compaore, at least he could have rode the wave of an international commodity boom.
The devastating impact of the international commodity crunch and African Debt Crisis in the 1980s and 1990s overwhelmed most African leaders, regardless of their ideology, and it's unlikely that Sankara's presence would have made a significant difference if he were still around.
The notion of pragmatism is subjective, influenced by one's ideological leanings, whether communist, market-oriented, pro-Western, or anti-Western. While Sankara demonstrated pragmatism in addressing his country's financial crisis by drastically cutting spending, he simultaneously showed reluctance to secure an IMF loan, limiting his ability to bolster his finances. Instead, he relied heavily on Western bilateral aid and support from Cuba, North Korea, and China. Eventually America reduced aid, and France was on the cusp of removing aid from Sankara because of his insults. If France removed aid, Burkina Faso would have collapsed especially during the drought.
Sankara's decision to replace communist officials with French advisors could be seen as either pragmatic or a betrayal of his principles. Moreover, his advocacy for loan defaults in an African Union speech seems more ideological than pragmatic, as it would have had minimal impact on lenders' portfolios. Most African countries, including Morocco and Nigeria, had already defaulted on their loans, which were subsequently restructured.