𝐂𝐚𝐩𝐭𝐚𝐢𝐧 𝐈𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐨𝐫𝐞́ 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐨𝐮𝐥 𝐨𝐟 𝐚 𝐍𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧 𝐢𝐧 𝐑𝐞𝐛𝐢𝐫𝐭𝐡

𝑨𝒃𝒔𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒕

This article critically examines the emergence of Captain Ibrahim Traoré in Burkina Faso’s contemporary political landscape. Moving beyond popular narratives of leadership, it analyzes Traoré’s governance style, his Pan-Africanist orientation, and his rejection of neocolonial dependency through the frameworks of postcolonial theory, sovereignty studies, and revolutionary praxis. Traoré’s ascent is interpreted not merely as a political transition, but as a profound manifestation of societal reawakening in a nation historically marginalized by both internal elite capture and external control. His leadership invites a reassessment of the possibilities of genuine sovereignty, self-sufficiency, and regional solidarity in the Sahel and beyond.

𝐊𝐞𝐲 𝐖𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬

Security Interventions, Resource Exploitation, Multinational Corporations, Natural Resource Reclamation, African Self-Sufficiency, Achille Mbembe

“𝙄 𝙙𝙤 𝙣𝙤𝙩 𝙛𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙩𝙞𝙩𝙡𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙧 𝙬𝙚𝙖𝙡𝙩𝙝. 𝙄 𝙛𝙞𝙜𝙝𝙩 𝙗𝙚𝙘𝙖𝙪𝙨𝙚 𝙩𝙝𝙚 𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙚𝙨 𝙤𝙛 𝙢𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚 𝙖𝙧𝙚 𝙩𝙤𝙤 𝙡𝙤𝙪𝙙 𝙩𝙤 𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙤𝙧𝙚. 𝙄𝙛 𝙢𝙮 𝙨𝙖𝙘𝙧𝙞𝙛𝙞𝙘𝙚 𝙞𝙨 𝙬𝙝𝙖𝙩 𝙞𝙩 𝙩𝙖𝙠𝙚𝙨 𝙩𝙤 𝙗𝙧𝙞𝙣𝙜 𝙥𝙚𝙖𝙘𝙚 𝙖𝙣𝙙 𝙙𝙞𝙜𝙣𝙞𝙩𝙮 𝙗𝙖𝙘𝙠 𝙩𝙤 𝘽𝙪𝙧𝙠𝙞𝙣𝙖 𝙁𝙖𝙨𝙤, 𝙩𝙝𝙚𝙣 𝙄 𝙬𝙞𝙡𝙡 𝙜𝙞𝙫𝙚 𝙞𝙩 𝙖𝙡𝙡. 𝙁𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙮 𝙘𝙤𝙪𝙣𝙩𝙧𝙮, 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙮 𝙥𝙚𝙤𝙥𝙡𝙚, 𝙛𝙤𝙧 𝙢𝙮 𝙨𝙤𝙪𝙡.”

— 𝘾𝙖𝙥𝙩𝙖𝙞𝙣 𝙄𝙗𝙧𝙖𝙝𝙞𝙢 𝙏𝙧𝙖𝙤𝙧𝙚́

𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐫𝐨𝐝𝐮𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧

The post-independence trajectory of Burkina Faso stands as a microcosm of the broader African experience: a landscape marked by the entrenchment of neocolonial power structures, the corrosion of nationalist aspirations by systemic corruption, and the chronic reproduction of socio-economic underdevelopment. The dream of authentic emancipation that accompanied decolonization rapidly gave way to elite consolidation, foreign intervention, and extractive governance models imposed through the mechanisms of global capitalism. Against this historical backdrop, Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s ascension to power on September 30, 2022, signifies not merely a political interlude, but a pivotal moment of historical reassertion. His rise rekindles the revolutionary ethos once embodied by Thomas Sankara — a vision rooted in radical autonomy, social justice, and Pan-African solidarity — while simultaneously grappling with the complex and evolving dilemmas of leadership in a fragmented postcolonial order.

This article contends that Traoré’s leadership must be understood not simply in terms of immediate political dynamics, but as an audacious reimagining of national sovereignty itself: a conscious rejection of neocolonial tutelage and a reclamation of historical agency. His political project is thus more than pragmatic resistance; it represents an ontological struggle to restore meaning, dignity, and self-determination to a people systematically dispossessed by both internal betrayal and external domination. In this sense, Traoré embodies not merely a reaction to crisis but an insurgent hope — the possibility of rewriting the scripts imposed by empire and reclaiming the future for Burkina Faso and, by extension, for the broader African continent.

𝐇𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐱𝐭: 𝐁𝐮𝐫𝐤𝐢𝐧𝐚 𝐅𝐚𝐬𝐨’𝐬 𝐈𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐫𝐮𝐩𝐭𝐞𝐝 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲

Burkina Faso’s political trajectory since its independence in 1960 encapsulates the broader contradictions that have plagued many African nations in the postcolonial era: a continual oscillation between the desire for genuine sovereignty and the relentless erosion of that sovereignty through both internal governance failures and the persistent influence of external hegemonies. This dual struggle, rooted in the colonial legacy, is marked by both a quest for self-determination and a systematic undermining of that quest by the internal dynamics of statecraft and the forces of global capitalism.

The revolutionary period under Thomas Sankara (1983–1987) represented an extraordinary rupture within this cycle — an audacious, radical attempt at national emancipation. Sankara’s project was not only a critique of the colonial order but also a comprehensive challenge to the structures of neocolonialism. His policies, grounded in anti-imperialism, grassroots mobilization, and self-reliance, attempted to forge a path of authentic sovereignty through agrarian reform, gender equality, and the rejection of foreign aid. This vision, however, met with violent resistance, culminating in Sankara’s assassination in 1987. The event, widely understood as both an internal betrayal and the result of external manipulation, marked the end of a bold experiment in self-determined governance. Sankara’s death, orchestrated by his close ally Blaise Compaoré, heralded the restoration of a neoliberal order that mirrored the exploitative dynamics of Burkina Faso’s colonial past. Under Compaoré, the country became increasingly dependent on Western financial institutions, military aid, and global resource extraction industries. This dependency was marketed as progress — a modernizing force — but, in reality, it entrenched a system that perpetuated the very patterns of exploitation and inequality that had defined colonial rule.

By the early 2020s, Burkina Faso’s political infrastructure had undergone a profound hollowing-out. The state, once a symbol of postcolonial aspiration, had become an entity whose legitimacy was eroded by decades of corrupt governance, mismanagement, and a failure to address the needs of its people. The spread of jihadist insurgencies across large swathes of the country exposed the fragility of the state’s security apparatus and the inability of the government to protect its citizens. The illusion of “development through partnership” — a concept that had been lauded by international actors as a pathway to prosperity — was revealed to be a mechanism of continued subordination. Rather than lifting the nation out of poverty, this partnership had reinforced structural inequalities, leaving much of the population in a state of perpetual economic and social disenfranchisement.

This systemic decay reached its zenith as the government failed to address the multiple crises facing the country. Corruption became endemic, elites became increasingly disengaged from the problems of the populace, and rural areas experienced dispossession and abandonment. In this environment, the state’s basic functions, from law enforcement to education and healthcare, began to collapse. It was against this backdrop of state disintegration, profound insecurity, and rising popular disillusionment that Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s intervention must be understood.

Traoré’s ascension was not simply a reaction to the immediate failures of his predecessor, Lieutenant Colonel Paul-Henri Sandaogo Damiba, but rather a manifestation of a deeper, historicized frustration with a model of governance that had failed to deliver the promises of sovereignty and self-determination that had been envisioned at independence. His rise signals the eruption of a long-suppressed collective will, a refusal to continue existing within a framework that had long since become hollow. This collective will, born of years of foreign dominance and internal corruption, represents a rejection of a system that had normalized the subordination of Burkina Faso’s people, rendering their dignity, autonomy, and sovereignty increasingly illusory.

In this sense, Traoré’s intervention cannot be understood as merely a military coup, but rather as a moment of political rupture — a symbolic and practical attempt to reclaim a national identity that had been eroded by decades of external interference and internal misrule. His emergence suggests a historical exhaustion, not just with individual leaders but with the very foundations of a postcolonial order that had failed to fulfill its promises. In the context of Burkina Faso’s long struggle for genuine sovereignty, Traoré represents the potential for a new moment of self-determination, one that seeks to break free from the shackles of both foreign exploitation and internal decay, and to redefine what true independence means in the 21st century.

𝐋𝐞𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐫𝐬𝐡𝐢𝐩 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐀𝐮𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐢𝐭𝐲: 𝐀 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐏𝐨𝐥𝐢𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐀𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐭𝐢𝐜

In stark contrast to many post-coup leaders who often rush to don the outward symbols of power — lavish attire, palatial residences, and bureaucratic trappings — Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s leadership has been defined by a profound and radical authenticity. His continued adherence to military fatigues, eschewing any ostentatious display of wealth or status, and his deliberate closeness to the people serve as overt symbols of his rejection of the elite isolation that typifies many African regimes. These gestures are not mere stylistic choices; they are deliberate political statements that speak to a broader vision of governance — one that seeks to bridge the chasm between rulers and the ruled, to transcend the long-standing disconnect that has often characterized the relationship between African leaders and their populations.

Traoré’s authenticity is not merely reflected in his personal style but in the substance of his leadership. He speaks the language of the streets, addressing the palpable frustrations of a generation that has known only economic stagnation, governance failure, and the disillusionment that often accompanies postcolonial states’ failure to fulfill their promises. His rhetoric is rooted in the lived realities of the Burkinabè people, who have witnessed the erosion of their national sovereignty under successive regimes that prioritized foreign interests over local empowerment. By voicing the concerns of the masses and refusing to obscure his connections to the citizenry, Traoré redefines the role of the leader, positioning himself as a man of the people rather than as a remote, inaccessible figure.

His actions are a manifestation of this authenticity. Unlike many of his predecessors, who merely paid lip service to ideals of Pan-Africanism while continuing to serve the interests of former colonial powers and Western financial institutions, Traoré has taken concrete steps to align Burkina Faso with the core tenets of self-determination. His nationalization of gold mines — a significant economic asset — and his push for agricultural self-sufficiency are not merely symbolic gestures but strategic actions aimed at redistributing the country’s resources for the benefit of its people. By rejecting Western development aid, Traoré is signaling a clear break with the dependency model that has long been a hallmark of African governance. This rejection is not a rejection of development itself but rather a rejection of the toxic paternalism that often accompanies foreign aid, which can perpetuate cycles of dependency and undermine the autonomy of sovereign nations.

In this way, Traoré’s leadership diverges sharply from the performative Pan-Africanism espoused by many African leaders. Where others gather at international summits to make symbolic declarations of unity, Traoré has taken the bold step of materially restructuring Burkina Faso’s external relations. His pivot towards non-Western powers like Russia and Turkey signals an intentional recalibration of Burkina Faso’s international alliances — an act of de-linking from the historical patterns of neocolonial subjugation that have shaped the country’s external dependencies. This geopolitical diversification, while controversial, is a strategic move to ensure that Burkina Faso is no longer tethered to the whims of Western powers and their global economic agendas. Traoré’s actions echo Samir Amin’s (1989) concept of de-linking — a process by which nations sever the economic and political ties that bind them to the exploitative structures of the global capitalist system, seeking instead to carve out an independent path of development.

Furthermore, Traoré’s formation of the Alliance of Sahel States, which includes Mali and Niger, underscores his commitment to regional self-defense and economic cooperation. In a region plagued by insecurity, particularly in the form of jihadist insurgencies, Traoré’s stance represents a profound departure from the traditional view that security and development must be outsourced to external actors, particularly former colonial powers and Western institutions. The Alliance reflects a belief in African solutions to African problems — an approach that prioritizes regional cooperation and solidarity over foreign intervention. This move is not only a repudiation of Western-led security frameworks but also an assertion of Burkina Faso’s sovereignty and autonomy within the broader Sahelian context.

Traoré’s leadership, however, is not just a beacon of hope for Burkina Faso; it has become a symbol of inspiration for all African nations grappling with the legacies of colonialism, neocolonialism, and systemic exploitation. His defiance of external pressures and his reorientation of Burkina Faso’s foreign policy are emblematic of a broader, pan-African movement toward sovereignty, dignity, and self-determination. In an era when many African nations continue to struggle with the constraints imposed by international financial institutions, Western powers, and global capitalism, Traoré’s stance offers a vision of political leadership rooted in authenticity and the rejection of dependency. His rise challenges the conventional notion that Africa must remain bound to the structures of power established by former colonial masters, inspiring other nations to seek paths of greater autonomy and self-reliance.

By positioning himself as both a political leader and a symbol of Burkina Faso’s defiant self-determination, Traoré is crafting a new political aesthetic, one that is deeply rooted in authenticity, pragmatism, and a commitment to reshaping both national and international relationships. His leadership style marks a break from the ostentatious, performative politics of the past, offering instead a model of governance that prioritizes the dignity, autonomy, and welfare of the people. In his embrace of regional solidarity, his rejection of Western patronage, and his alignment with non-Western powers, Traoré is charting a course that seeks to reclaim Burkina Faso’s agency and redefine its place in the world. His leadership represents not merely a response to the failures of the past but a vision for a future in which Africa, as a whole, is able to define its own destiny — free from the legacies of colonialism and the constraints of external domination.

𝐈𝐛𝐫𝐚𝐡𝐢𝐦 𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐨𝐫𝐞́’𝐬 𝐁𝐨𝐥𝐝 𝐑𝐞𝐟𝐨𝐫𝐦𝐬 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐆𝐫𝐨𝐰𝐭𝐡”

In just two years, Ibrahim Traoré significantly contributed to the growth of Burkina Faso’s economy, with the country’s GDP rising from approximately $18.8 billion to $22.1 billion. He notably rejected loans from the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank, asserting that Africa does not need assistance from these global financial institutions. To foster a more equitable society, Traoré implemented reforms such as reducing the salaries of ministers and parliamentarians by 30% while increasing the pay of civil servants by 50%. Additionally, his government successfully paid off Burkina Faso’s local debts, further stabilizing the economy.

Traoré’s tenure also saw significant advancements in local industry. He established two tomato processing plants, marking the first of their kind in the country, and in 2023, he inaugurated a state-of-the-art gold mine aimed at enhancing local processing capabilities. One of his key policies was to stop the export of unrefined Burkina Faso gold to Europe, ensuring more value-added processing within the country. Furthermore, he built the country’s second cotton processing plant and opened the first National Support Center for Artisanal Cotton Processing to support local cotton farmers.

In terms of cultural and legal reforms, Traoré banned the use of British legal wigs and gowns in local courts, opting instead for traditional Burkinabé attire. He also prioritized agriculture, distributing over 400 tractors, 239 tillers, 710 motor pumps, and 714 motorcycles to boost rural production. He provided access to improved seeds and farm inputs, resulting in increased agricultural yields, including a rise in tomato production from 315,000 metric tonnes in 2022 to 360,000 metric tonnes in 2024, and increases in millet and rice production as well.

Traoré took bold political actions by banning French military operations, media, and expelling French troops from Burkina Faso, signaling a shift towards greater national sovereignty. His government is also focused on improving infrastructure, constructing new roads, upgrading existing ones, and building the Ouagadougou-Donsin Airport, which is set to be completed in 2025 and will have the capacity to handle 1 million passengers annually.

𝐓𝐫𝐚𝐨𝐫𝐞́ 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐒𝐚𝐧𝐤𝐚𝐫𝐚 𝐋𝐞𝐠𝐚𝐜𝐲

The resonance between Ibrahim Traoré and Thomas Sankara is undeniably profound, as both men emerged as charismatic military leaders at the age of 34, seizing power through intervention and positioning themselves as champions of a transformative political vision. Each donned the military uniform not merely as a symbol of authority, but as a deliberate and powerful political statement — an assertion that military strength could serve as a tool for liberating the nation from both internal corruption and external exploitation. Moreover, both articulated visions of a sovereign and self-reliant Burkina Faso, rooted in anti-imperialism and the mobilization of the masses as agents of change. However, while these symbolic parallels abound, the political environment that Traoré faces today is, in many ways, even more precarious and fraught with complexities than the one Sankara confronted in the 1980s.

The context for Traoré’s rise to power is situated in a dramatically altered geopolitical landscape. Unlike Sankara, who navigated the Cold War’s bipolar structure — a world defined by superpower competition between the United States and the Soviet Union — Traoré operates within a multipolar world order that remains, for the most part, dominated by Western powers, albeit with growing challenges from rising non-Western actors. This shifting global power dynamic has been compounded by the rise of non-state actors, particularly jihadist groups, which have introduced an existential security threat to Burkina Faso and the wider Sahel region. Where Sankara’s anti-imperialism was formulated in opposition to the U.S.-led capitalist bloc and Soviet communism, Traoré’s revolutionary rhetoric must navigate a more fluid, nuanced geopolitical environment, where traditional imperialism is now entwined with the complexities of international counterterrorism efforts, regional conflicts, and the ever-present influence of multinational corporations. His challenge lies in how to craft a vision of national sovereignty that resists both direct foreign intervention and the diffuse, covert forms of control exercised through globalized economic systems and security partnerships.

Moreover, Traoré’s rise comes at a time when regional instability — marked by a proliferation of coups, military regimes, and worsening security conditions — has deepened the sense of fragility across much of West and Central Africa. In this volatile environment, the dreams of self-reliance and liberation that Sankara championed face far more immediate, tangible threats: the increasing militarization of Africa, the erosion of civil institutions, and the proliferation of extremist ideologies. Traoré’s project of national sovereignty is thus confronted with a new set of challenges, wherein the stakes are not only political but existential. In a world marked by a paradoxical combination of neoliberal economics and escalating insecurity, his task is to balance the fight for sovereignty with the urgent need for stability and security.

April 30th, the day Sankara’s assassination occurred, has increasingly been embraced by Pan-Africanist movements as a day of remembrance and symbolic resistance. This day, however, is no longer merely about the survival of an individual leader, but about the survival of an idea — a deep, unyielding assertion that sovereignty is not only possible but necessary for Africa’s future. It is a declaration that resistance to external domination, exploitation, and internal betrayal can be institutionalized, so that African nations can finally forge futures of self-determination free from the yoke of historical subjugation. The question of whether Traoré can sustain his revolutionary agenda under such intense pressure — from both internal and external forces — has now become a matter of continental significance.

Traoré’s survival thus represents more than the preservation of a single leadership figure or the fate of Burkina Faso alone. His success or failure will have profound implications for the wider African struggle for autonomy and dignity. Should he be assassinated or removed from power, it would be more than a national tragedy for Burkina Faso; it would serve as a grim affirmation of the continent’s ongoing vulnerability — not only to internal betrayal but also to the subversive forces of external sabotage. In a world where Africa’s sovereignty remains perennially contested, the tragic loss of another revolutionary leader like Traoré would reinforce the dark cycle of failed promises, broken dreams, and the systemic disempowerment that has so often marked the postcolonial experience. Thus, Traoré’s fate — and the survival of his revolutionary vision — is inherently tied to the larger, collective struggle for Africa’s future: one in which the promise of sovereignty, dignity, and true self-determination is no longer an abstract hope, but a lived reality.

. 𝐒𝐨𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐢𝐠𝐧𝐭𝐲, 𝐑𝐞𝐬𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐜𝐞, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐍𝐞𝐨𝐜𝐨𝐥𝐨𝐧𝐢𝐚𝐥 𝐑𝐞𝐭𝐫𝐞𝐧𝐜𝐡𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭

Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s political project represents a profound challenge to the prevailing structures of “soft” neocolonial control, which have become the hallmark of modern postcolonial governance in Africa. These structures are not only rooted in the dependency on foreign development aid but also in externally imposed security interventions, economic exploitation through multinational corporations, and the systematic marginalization of African sovereignty. Traoré’s emphasis on reclaiming natural resources and his articulation of a vision for African self-sufficiency directly confronts these entrenched neocolonial mechanisms. In doing so, his leadership resonates with the ideas advanced by scholars like Achille Mbembe (2001), who conceptualized the “right to opacity” — the notion that postcolonial societies should be free from the imposed logics, surveillance, and moral frameworks of the global North. Mbembe’s right to opacity, therefore, reflects not only a political and cultural assertion of autonomy but also a profound existential refusal to be defined by external forces that have historically shaped and limited Africa’s destiny.

By advocating for a reclamation of control over the nation’s resources and rejecting the capitalist extraction model imposed by Western powers, Traoré embodies a vision of postcolonial agency that seeks to rewrite the terms of engagement with the global economy. His leadership challenges the dominant neoliberal narrative that frames Africa’s development as a byproduct of foreign intervention and market-driven modernization. Instead, Traoré articulates a vision of Burkina Faso—and, by extension, Africa—as capable of fostering its own economic, political, and cultural structures, untainted by the conditionality often attached to foreign aid or military assistance.

However, Traoré’s vision inevitably provokes a backlash. As with any force that threatens the established global order, his leadership is met with resistance, particularly from the West, whose interests in Africa are deeply entwined with maintaining a system of extractive capitalism, geopolitical dominance, and ideological control. In this regard, the Western media has already begun to depict Traoré as a destabilizing figure, framing his leadership as a threat to regional and global stability rather than recognizing it as an expression of popular sovereignty and self-determination. This framing serves not only to delegitimize his actions but also to create a narrative in which his quest for African self-reliance is depicted as a form of instability. In this context, the possibility of sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and covert interventions looms large, signaling the West’s commitment to protecting the global neoliberal order at any cost.

Traoré’s struggle is thus not confined to the boundaries of domestic political contestation or counterterrorism efforts. It extends to a direct confrontation with the entire global geopolitical architecture that perpetuates Africa’s subjugation. This architecture, built on the logic of neocolonialism, militates against the realization of true African autonomy by embedding African nations within global systems that prioritize foreign interests over local sovereignty. In this sense, Traoré’s political project challenges not just the foreign-imposed economic and security frameworks but also the ideological apparatus that supports them. His defiance represents a critical rupture in the cycle of African subordination, symbolizing an existential struggle for the right to self-determination in a world that has continually sought to undermine it.

𝐂𝐨𝐧𝐜𝐥𝐮𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧

Captain Ibrahim Traoré’s leadership marks a defining moment in the history of Burkina Faso, and arguably, in the broader Sahel region, as he confronts and resists the pervasive influence of neocolonialism. His defiance of external powers, his commitment to Pan-Africanist ideals, and his tireless efforts to restore national dignity place him within the lineage of revolutionary African leaders who have sought to break free from the shackles of colonial and neocolonial oppression. This tradition of resistance, however, has often been extinguished before it could fully mature, as powerful forces both internal and external have conspired to suppress movements for African autonomy. In this light, Traoré’s project can be seen as both a continuation and a rejuvenation of this unfinished struggle for liberation.

The question of whether Traoré’s project will ultimately succeed remains uncertain, shaped by formidable challenges that extend beyond his immediate political maneuvering. These challenges include Burkina Faso’s deep-seated economic fragility, the unstable regional context defined by insurgent movements, and the relentless external pressures exerted by foreign powers and multinational interests. Yet, his rise to power represents a renewed assertion of agency and a potent reminder that the postcolonial condition is not an inevitability. The African future remains a dynamic terrain of struggle, imagination, and possibility, where the old paradigms of exploitation and dependence are being questioned and reimagined. In Traoré, Burkina Faso—and Africa more broadly—sees not just a political figure, but a living testament to the unfinished project of liberation. His leadership offers a glimpse of a potential future where sovereignty is not a mere concept enshrined in treaties but a tangible reality, underpinned by dignity, self-determination, and an uncompromising resistance to global structures of oppression.

𝐺𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑖𝑑 𝑌𝑢𝑠𝑢𝑓 𝐼𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑛 𝑆𝑒𝑛𝑖𝑜𝑟 𝐿𝑒𝑐𝑡𝑢𝑟𝑒𝑟 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑅𝑒𝑠𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑐ℎ𝑒𝑟, 𝑠𝑝𝑒𝑐𝑖𝑎𝑙𝑖𝑧𝑖𝑛𝑔 𝑖𝑛 𝑑𝑖𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑚𝑎𝑐𝑦, 𝑝𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑡𝑖𝑐𝑠, 𝑎𝑛𝑑 𝑖𝑛𝑡𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑎𝑙 𝑟𝑒𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛𝑠 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝐻𝑜𝑟𝑛 𝑜𝑓 𝐴𝑓𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑎

𝐼𝑑𝑎𝑎𝑛54@𝑔𝑚𝑎𝑖𝑙. 𝑐𝑜𝑚