On 05 September 2021, Colonel Mamadou Doumbouya of the Guinean special forces led a coup d'état against the Western African country's president, Alpha Condé. Initial reports were that the head of state was safe in his official residence, the Sekoutoureah Presidential Palace, but the coup plotters later published a video showing Condé in their custody. The Constitution and the government were then dissolved, as the putschists were to head the nation for the meantime.

This event generated condemnation from the international community. Not only did the brutal regimes like those of Burundi, Nigeria, China, Venezuela and Russia (Condé's main ally) denounce it; the United States, the European Union, the United Nations and even France, which abandoned him for wanting to extend his rule, also did. If it is said as a "coup", it's a forceful toppling of an administration, usually in a manner contrary to the system's constitution. Since it's forceful and unconstitutional, the perception towards coups is that these are violent, against popular will, and automatically lead to rights abuses.

Truly, many coups bore unwelcoming results: the Brazilian military against João Goulart in 1964; Cambodia's Hun Sen against Norodom Ranaridh; Chad's Idriss Déby against Hissène Habré; Chile's Pinochet against Salvador Allende; the Soviet invasion of Hungary; the Iraqi Baathists in 1968; the recent Tatmadaw takeover in Myanmar; Syria's Hafez al-Assad against Salah Jadid; the coups of Idi Amin and Yoweri Museveni. There are too many to mention, and state terrorism followed such coups.

The question is that should we generalise coups as disrespecting popular will and harming human rights. The problem with the international community's reaction to the Guinean coup was that they did not dwell much on the country's political and economic situations prior, factors that may have lead to the takeover. Yes, the offensive started with a gunfire, but should we stop there?

 

Alpha Condé is the Western African country's first democratically-elected president, and the country's resources, such as bauxite and other minerals, were discovered and extracted more, pushing its economy forward, but the fruits of labour only come to his regime's hands. Later, in the last year of his rule, Guinea observed sharp rise of commodity prices, like those of bread ingredients and petroleum products, as its economy is reeling simultaneously with the COVID-19 pandemic plus a period of uncertainty due to an Ebola virus disease (EVD) outbreak in February the same year. And despite he was first chosen by the masses, Condé already faced public discontent recently: his plan was to amend the state's constitution particularly to reset presidential terms (which was only two; his second term was due last year), and announcing that plan in October 2019 angered the masses. Security forces then killed at least 17 people in the resulting demonstrations, which continued especially in the referendum and election periods of 2020. Condé had his plans succeed: the March referendum and the October elections were both in his favour, and the issue of electoral fraud of course cannot be avoided. Protests continued to be bloody. 12 people were killed in the former polls, and more than 90 in the latter; attacks against democracy through regime harassment against opposition figures were reported.

Then the coup occurred. While the putschists gained negative reception from the international community, it was welcomed by the locals, albeit with caution. Both Jacques Gbonimy and Saikou Yaya, heads of opposition parties Union for the Progress of Guinea and Union of Republican Forces, respectively, pointed at the regime leader's mismanagement for the coup; the United Trade Union of Guinean Workers (USTG) hoped for peaceful transition; and the National Front for the Defence of the Constitution (FNDC) questioned the manner of Condé's ouster despite acknowledging it was "peaceful and inclusive". The international community was quick to condemn, but learned little about the country's situation as their reactions did not reflect their local counterparts. This was a display of prejudice on the part of the former, and it's dismaying.

 

And do coups always lead to disrespect to the masses and the rise of rights abuses? If so, despite rights violations are rights violations and shall never be tolerated, which regime is the one who acted worse? I'll raise six instances, from not-so-good to best:

Businessman Thaksin Shinawatra, like Condé, is almost the first to be democratically elected in his nation-- Thailand. Initially popular and helping develop the nation's economy, his rule was however marred by dictatorship, rights violations (particularly his ineffective "War on Drugs") and corruption: the most notable issue being the sale of his telecommunications company, then Shin Corporation, to a foreign company, without any capital gains tax. He was ousted through a coup, and uncertainties existed especially in 2008: three people assumed the role in this one year. Had the "War on Drugs" repeated? Did rights violations continue? Did the ShinCorp incident happen again? I wanted to express enthusiasm after Thaksin's ouster (and that of his sister Yingluck, who faced almost the same fate in 2014), but the military juntas acted dictatorially like him, such as that of general-turned prime minister Prayut Chan-o-cha, who had the opposition Future Forward Party dissolved and is tightly enforcing the country's lèse majesté (disrespect to the majesty) laws. I am then rooting for the current opposition against the incumbent yet absent of the influence of Thaksin, his Thai Rak Thai party (TRT) and its remnants.

Ibrahim Boubacar Keita (IBK), meanwhile, is not the first to be democratically elected in his nation-- Mali. He then faced protests in mid-2020 due to irregularities in recent elections and corruption. Putschists led by Assimi Goita then kicked him out, and it was welcomed by the Malian masses. They, however, are calling for Putin's help, Condé's best friend.

Both coups are denounced by the international community.

Robert Mugabe, also like Condé and Thaksin, also used to be popular in his country-- Zimbabwe, for he helped lead the liberation thereof from the British in 1979-1980. His rule was however tainted also by corruption and dictatorship, as well the hyperinflation of the Zimbabwean Dollar. Protests then erupted in 2016, which concluded the following year with a coup also welcomed by the masses; one activist, Vimbaishe Musvaburi, cried in joy in an interview by BBC as Mugabe finally stepped down. Uncertainty, however, also followed, as the succeeding regime of Mugabe's rivals in his own party (ZANU-PF; the country is now led by then-vice president Emerson Mnangagwa) keeps the predecessor's misbehaviour.

Omar al-Bashir, however, crossed a different path unlike Condé: he instigated a coup in 1989 and rooted on political Islamism. He is notorious for backing the militia Janjaweed and their forces' participation in genocide in Darfur and other crimes against humanity. But like the ousted Guinean leader, his last years were marked by a troubled economy, but it helped spark the 2018 protests, which also ended with a coup. Masses also rejoiced, but even if the military and civilians struck a power-sharing deal and if al-Bashir is being tried in the nation's courts before going to the International Criminal Court, demonstrations still continue, and the succeeding regime's response is brutal.

Let's say I were wrong, that the international community is not generalising coups as evil, as its responses to the Zimbabwean and Sudanese coups were on exercising extreme caution than on condemning these. If so, then why did the Guinean putschists not receive such remarks? I assume this is because of lack of awareness on the Guinean situation, and I put some (a large chunk of) blame on Western and international media for failing to inform the world about events in Africa, let alone in the Western African state.

Last example is the Philippines: Ferdinand Marcos is not the first to be democratically elected, but he also succumbed to a coup like Condé did, because his ouster in 1986 was technically a coup, though the actual one failed. But because it was civilian-backed, it became more of a revolution, and it marked the beginning of the end of the Cold War, thus the positive reception. Condemnation only comes from the Marcos loyalists who either act foolishly or try to revise history.

 

Welcome coups if it is backed by the masses, who are disgruntled by dire issues such as corruption, authoritarianism and economic mismanagement. They have valid grievances, and these should be addressed. It would however be good for state armed groups to have hands off political affairs, but it is also their duty to protect their own peoples from harm, may it come outside or inside their countries. A popular coup may be also a manifestation of failure from the international community to intervene in crises where the masses are not able to topple their regimes.

This, however, does not mean that I support violent methods. I may be welcoming the developments in Guinea, but I would have the same sentiments with the Guinean opposition: I blame Alpha Condé's regime for making this happen, and I express caution as I am hoping for a peaceful transition of power in the country.

 

Article posted on 07 September 2021, 03:35 (UTC +08:00).

 This free site is ad-supported. Learn more
​