Nelson Mandela was quoted as saying, “It is not kings and generals that make history but the masses of the people.” This came to mind as I watched what was unfolding in Burkina Faso. I watched Blaise Compaoré’s 27 year reign come to an abrupt end in the midst of a burning Parliamentary building.
He tried to resist the opposition to his bid to extend his reign – but the people had finally decided that they wanted change. Soon after Compaoré’s resignation, an army officer declared himself president of Burkina Faso. A vacuum had opened up and someone needed to fill it.
Army generals around the world in recent history have “stepped in” each time there was a vacuum. One only needs to look at the Egypt example from a few years back. The masses of the people had made history without kings or generals, and deposed of their president.
However, there was now a vacuum, and some sections of society have noted that if there is a vacuum, opportunists are sure to follow. Whether the army can be seen as being opportunistic still remains to be seen. However one question remains: should revolutions have leaders?
A revolution is defined as a forcible overthrow of a government or social order, in favour of a new system. Revolutions can be characterised by spontaneity, persistence or planning, with a massive part of the population rising up to protest an injustice.
The Iranian Revolution of 1978/79, the Cuban Revolution of the 1950s and the October Revolution of 1917 all had leaders; Ali Hosseini Khamenei, Fidel Castro and Vladimir Lenin. But do all revolutions have a discernible leader? In the case of the Arab Spring in Tunisia and Egypt, there was no discernible leader.
Vacuums in modern day politics have led to transitional governments, coalition governments, military juntas or extended chaos, taking time to re-establish democratic order. The Burkinabé example showed a man rising up to claim control last week due to the sudden and uncoordinated exit of the president.
Should the deputy president or speaker of Parliament have taken over? Maybe the view was that all of them were tainted, since even the brother of the deposed president had his house ransacked. It has been good to see civil society, the people and other organisations coming up to protest against military rule, insisting that this was “the People’s Revolution”.
In an ideal world it would be nice to have a smooth transition once a revolution ends. However, this is not always the case. A revolution is usually coupled with organised or disorganised “chaos”.
In addition one needs to understand that when there is such a protest, the thought of who will take over the reins of the country is hardly ever a priority. If the revolution does have a leader, like in the instance of Cuba’s Castro, then maybe a smooth, solid transition can be guaranteed.
However, we have seen instances were a revolution had a leader but that leader ended up being deposed themselves. Ironically, one such example is Thomas Sankara, who was removed by the now deposed Compaoré 27 years ago.
Therefore, there can never be a consistent answer on whether revolutions should have leaders as this is not a priority when such action is taken. Opportunism will always be present in some form.