According to most, after the 2005 elections, Burundi seemed to be on the right track towards stability and democracy. The 2010 elections seemed to be the final turning point from war to peace for the country. Yet after the 2010 elections, several grave problems have come to light; problems that could threaten the fragile peace and democracy in Burundi. These problems are mostly related to the opposition’s reaction to the election, the marginalisation of the opposition, and weak governance. As a result, another problem has also emerged, namely violent political banditry.

There is concern that the combination of these elements could lead to another civil war in Burundi, while also breaking down the fragile social and political contexts that have been developed. To explore this threat, one must briefly consider the events surrounding the Burundi 2010 elections as well as the other major problems that are threatening the fragile democracy within Burundi. One cannot ignore several elements that contradict the assumption that full-scale war will break out.

The elections and warning signs

Major concerns have come to light after the 2010 elections. The ruling party, Conseil National pour la Défense de la Démocratie et Forces de Défense de la Démocratie (CNDD-FDD), received a majority vote of 64% in the local elections. According to national and international observers as well as the media and civil society, the elections adhered to international standards and more or less reflected public opinion. Although they all agree it was a free and fair election – there were admittedly some irregularities and intimidation between the different parties. Yet the opposition, most noticeably the Forces Nationales de Libération (FNL), has denounced the victory as a “massive electoral fraud.”⁽²⁾ The opposition went on to boycott the remaining legislative and presidential elections, which resulted in overwhelming victories for the ruling party and consolidated its control over all state institutions.

The opposition’s boycott of the election meant that they missed out on a significant representation in the legislative branch that they could have won. This unwillingness of the opposition to accept the election results reflect a lack of democratic culture in which opposition parties acknowledge their defeat.⁽³⁾ At the same time, the ruling party also did not adhere completely to a democratic culture. Instead of reaching out to the opposition after they boycotted the subsequent elections, the ruling party rather intensified the prosecution of the opposition on grounds of “violent incidents” during the presidential vote and moved against the independent media and civil society. This involved arresting several opposition party members, which led to several opposition members fleeing the country or going into hiding - a situation which could have been avoided considering that the new president could have won elections by popularity alone and did not need to use force.

Just as the opposition did not need to use force, in a democratic state they should accept the election results. Within this entire situation, the political climate deteriorated, while also worsening the human rights situation in a poverty-stricken and struggling country.⁽⁴⁾

Problems facing democracy

These problems that developed after the elections are part of a chain of problems that pose a threat to democracy. Some of these concerns were observed before the elections, especially apprehension regarding the worsening security in the country and the limits to political freedom. During the middle of 2010, there were attacks on families and several party meetings were interrupted while their supporters were beaten. At the same time, the youth in Burundi became more politically involved and aggressive. Yet one needs to consider that some of these elements form part of the political intimidation, while others such as attacks on families, are related to conflict over land, and is not politically related.⁽⁵⁾ But this does not mean there are not several looming threats to democracy in Burundi.

According to the International Crisis Group (ICG), a Brussels-based think-tank, the decade of progress in Burundi that it has made since its civil war ended, will be reversed unless the Government resumes political dialogue with the opposition.⁽⁶⁾ Serious problems have developed in the wake of the 2010 elections; these problems include the marginalisation of the opposition and the emergence of violent political banditry, which in combination with the weak governance, threatens to set back democratic progress in this fragile state. As Thierry Vircoulon, the ICG's Central Africa Project Director, stated: “The ruling party is in effect reinforcing a nascent rebellion and doing harm to democracy by marginalising and repressing the opposition.”⁽⁷⁾

This repression of the opposition has also had a chain reaction after the elections. Government security started arresting opposition leaders on grounds of so-called violence during the elections. The opposition leaders that were not arrested have managed to flee the country or go underground. As a result, the leadership of the FNL party has been taken over by a dissident minority with the support of the authorities. This has resulted in frequent clashes between security forces and unidentified men in certain parts of the country. These men are the first of a nascent rebellion that is being reinforced by the Government’s actions.⁽⁸⁾ Simultaneously, civil society organisations have assisted to strengthen political parties due to the situation, but this has made them a target of Government repression themselves.⁽⁹⁾ Thus it is not only opposition that needs more space and freedom of expression, but also the civil society. This situation will not necessarily lead to another civil war, but is doing harm to democracy.

This lack of expression of civil society has led to a gradual increase in the level of insecurity in Burundi. There have been attacks on civilians working, as well as attacks on busses, yet no one has claimed responsibility for these acts. This means that civilians do not know whether they are facing a new rebellion or only armed bandits, as these attacks have been targeted. However, it has been agreed by panellists that a return to large-scale fighting is unlikely and that the sporadic clashes will continue, but not result in war. They have highlighted several positive forces that decrease the likelihood of resumed armed conflict. This includes the national army that is a constraint for any opposition that wishes to build up a significant army and also the fact that Burundians are tired of fighting and do not wish to resume war; they actually value democracy. Civil society organisations are also united in spite of Government repression; they have the potential to bring about change.⁽¹⁰⁾

The key to avoiding a breakdown of fragile democracy at this stage seems to centre on the renewed negotiations. After the elections, the permanent forum of political parties has ceased to have a purpose, as there have been no official talks between the Government and opposition. At the same time, the new Government has been showing serious governance problems, which has resulted in growing corruption, a lack of an independent justice system, weak oversight of institutions, and a stalled transitional justice agenda; each of these constitute immediate threats to democratic consolidation.⁽¹¹⁾ While attempts to defuse the crisis have been limited, there have been calls for dialogue; however the international community has been slow to act and to pressurise the Government. It would seem that several changes are necessary to avoid destabilising the fragile democracy. It also seems that the problems in Burundi are a threat to democracy and the safety of civilians, but not a prediction to a return to civil war.

Necessary changes

The ICG has made several recommendations to ensure that Burundi stays on the positive path it has been on until 2010. Most importantly, they stated that this post-electoral authoritarian trend must end and that the institutional dialogue between political actors be resumed within the framework of a reorganised permanent party forum. The Government and opposition must engage in talks to improve the political and security context, as well as to agree on a law on the status of the opposition being guaranteed political freedom, freedom of assembly, and an end to arbitrary arrests. This would also include the release of the opposition leaders that were illegally arrested. At the same time, opposition leaders should denounce all acts of violence as a political tool, while the Government must stop intimidating civil society organisations and the media.⁽¹²⁾

International and religious leaders must pressure the Government and opposition to make the necessary changes to bring Burundi out of this ever-deepening political impasse that will reverse all the progress the country has made. This dangerous trend must be ended; it requires the resumption of political dialogue and strengthening of democratic institutions. Organisations and other states could also play a part in bringing this trend to an end by offering to mediate these talks and negotiations. Once this step is taken, there should be more parties to hold the Government and opposition accountable to the standards of a democracy.

Concluding remarks

Burundi is a fragile state, which has managed to consolidate peace and make substantial progress after its civil war. Yet after the 2010 elections, grave concerns have been expressed about the weak governance, the marginalisation of the opposition, and the emergence of violent political banditry. These elements themselves will not push Burundi towards a civil war, as there are positive elements as well, but it does still threaten democracy and the political security of Burundi. The most important aspect for the country to avoid the recurrence of war is for the Government and opposition to resume talks, while also denouncing the use of violence and intimidation.

In general, both parties need to embrace democratic principles more. The international community must ensure that these principles are made clear and that the talks take place. Pressure needs to be put on the actors involved, even though the situation will not lead to a full-scale war; it still endangers citizens on the grass-roots level and is damaging the democratic progress Burundi has made.

NOTES:

(1) Contact Annette Theron through Consultancy Africa Intelligence's Election Reflection Unit (conflict.terrorism@consultancyafrica.com).
(2) ‘Burundi: On the Brink of another Civil War’, News from Africa, 9 February 2011, http://www.newsfromafrica.org.
(3) Peterson, D., Sindayigaya, A., Slachmuijlder, L., Kalisa, N. & Wolpe, H., ‘Burundi: A Fragile State on the Precipice’, Wilson Centre, 10 November 2010, http://www.wilsoncenter.org.
(4) Ibid.
(5) ‘Analysis: Tensions high in run-up to Burundi elections’, Integrated Regional Information Networks (IRIN), 4 March 2010, http://www.unhcr.org.
(6) ‘Burundi: On the Brink of another Civil War’, News from Africa, 9 February 2011, http://www.newsfromafrica.org.
(7) ‘Burundi: from Electoral Boycott to Political Impasse’, International Crisis Group (ICG), 7 February 2011, http://www.crisisgroup.org.
(8) Ibid.
(9) Peterson,D., Sindayigaya, A., Slachmuijlder, L., Kalisa, N. & Wolpe, H., ‘Burundi: A Fragile State on the Precipice’, Wilson Centre, 10 November 2010, http://www.wilsoncenter.org.
(10) Ibid.
(11) ‘Burundi: On the Brink of another Civil War’, News from Africa, 9 February 2011, http://www.newsfromafrica.org.
(12) ‘Burundi: from Electoral Boycott to Political Impasse’, International Crisis Group (ICG), 7 February 2011, http://www.crisisgroup.org.

Written by Annette Theron ⁽¹⁾