In Niger, the push for “refoundation” and sovereignty has reopened a delicate question: can a regime that rose to power outside democratic norms credibly claim to represent the people’s will? A recent opinion piece by Ibrahim Elhadji dit Hima, published on Niger Inter, argues that some of the very activists now championing sovereignty under the CNSP-led government were once vocal defenders of democracy—until political circumstances changed.
The Complicated Legacy of Democratic Struggle
Hima’s commentary draws a sharp contrast between Niger’s genuine democratic heroes and those he calls “opportunists.” He points to the late Moumouni Djermakoye Adamou, founder of the Nigerien Alliance for Democracy and Progress (ANDP), who died on June 14, 2009, just as he was about to deliver what would have been his final political speech. Adamou is remembered as a steadfast figure in the fight for democracy, a legacy that Niger honored on the anniversary of his death.
Against that backdrop, Hima recalls a political activist who, years ago, vowed to “use all means to restore democracy” in Niger. That same activist, he notes, is now comfortably positioned within the political apparatus of the Refoundation regime—the government that emerged after the July 26, 2023 coup d’état. For Hima, this reversal raises questions about sincerity and trust.
When Democracy Becomes a Stepping Stone
Hima’s broader argument is that democracy has always attracted two kinds of people: true believers and those who see it as a means to advance their own interests. Over time, he suggests, the latter have often turned against democracy when it no longer served them. In Niger’s current context, he sees this pattern repeating itself—activists who once demanded democratic restoration now appear to have abandoned that language entirely, some even becoming vocal critics of democracy itself.
The result, in Hima’s view, is a credibility gap. If the same people who once fought for democracy are now silent on it, or hostile to it, how can they convincingly speak about sovereignty? He asks: “Who can believe them, who can place any trust in their speeches?”
The Conceptual Link Between Sovereignty and Democracy
At the heart of Hima’s piece is a conceptual argument: sovereignty and democracy are not opposites but deeply intertwined. In a republic, he writes, the only sovereign is the people. Sovereignty, whether expressed through elections or other major political decisions, is ultimately the expression of the people’s will. Democracy, he insists, is not limited to elections—it encompasses every policy choice and decision that shapes a nation’s direction.
Given that overlap, Hima finds it contradictory for those who have turned their backs on democracy to claim to speak sincerely about sovereignty. He calls this “yet another farce.”
Why This Matters Beyond Niger
Hima’s critique touches on a tension that resonates far beyond Niger’s borders. Across the Sahel and parts of West Africa, military-led governments have increasingly framed their takeovers as necessary corrections to flawed democratic systems. They often promise a more authentic form of sovereignty, free from foreign influence and elite corruption. But critics argue that such promises ring hollow when the very mechanisms of popular will—free elections, independent courts, a free press—are suppressed or dismantled.
The debate is not merely academic. For ordinary citizens, the question is whether the new regimes will deliver on their promises of security, development, and genuine self-determination—or whether they will simply replace one form of elite rule with another.
Looking Ahead
As Niger’s Refoundation process continues, the tension between democratic ideals and sovereign ambitions is unlikely to fade. Whether the current regime can bridge that gap remains an open question, one that will be answered not by speeches but by actions.
Source: Refondation/Souveraineté : Dans le piège des opportunistes