Constitutions are theoretically the guarantors of this alternation. Setting a limit on the number of presidential terms is in fact a sound measure, adopted by the majority of African countries. The provision is sometimes even irremovable. However, these precautions have not prevented a number of heads of state from remaining in power for decades, repeatedly violating democratic principles and to the general indifference of the media and international public opinion. In some African countries, veritable dynasties have seized power, handed down from father to son. Twelve families currently in power in Africa were already in power in 1990. Over 87% of Gabonese and Togolese people have known only one family at the head of state! Yet these regimes enjoy more or less tacit support from the leaders of other countries.

After the Cold War, they succeeded in establishing international legitimacy by subtly manipulating the terrorist threat. In the North, it is as if democracy were a luxury that African countries could not afford. The consequences of these situations are mortifying for African societies. The political and military upheavals in some countries bear witness to this. Citizens mobilising for a change of government and respect for constitutional and democratic rules are paying a heavy price for the repression. However, the democratic spirit is not about to fade. Attempts at dynastic succession have been defeated in Senegal by the ballot box, and in Tunisia and Egypt by the Arab revolutions. And the cry of ‘Y en a marre!’ from Dakar in 2012 is echoing far beyond Senegal. The streets of Maputo, Bujumbura, Libreville, Kampala, Ouagadougou and Algiers express the same desire for change. The same rejection of dynastic power.

The threat of constitutional coups

In the 1990s, the winds of constitutionalism led many African countries to limit their terms of office and open up to a multi-party system. The mobilisation of citizens at home was decisive in forcing the authoritarian regimes of the time to change, with the support of democratic forces from outside. Today, the time has come for a new alliance of citizens from Africa, Europe and elsewhere, for a new stage: to make change happen. Rejecting any manipulation of the constitution for personal convenience is the first step. While revising a constitution is not in itself an anti-democratic practice, transforming it into an instrument for perpetuating personal power is at odds with the expectations of citizens and the values espoused by the international community in terms of promoting the rule of law. The invocation of political stability and the artifice of the fight against the terrorist threat should not delude us. Experience throughout the world has shown that respect for democratic rules is the best antidote to political instability, armed conflict and terrorism. It is the solidity of institutions that guarantees stability, not the durability of personal power.

The threat of a constitutional coup is looming in 2015 in Burkina Faso with Blaise Compaoré, in 2016 in Congo with Denis Sassou Nguesso and in DRC with Joseph Kabila, and in 2017 in Rwanda with Paul Kagamé. In Togo, the dynastic succession already took place in 2005, at the cost of a constitutional fiddling that left 800 people dead. In defiance of the political dialogue on institutional reforms and the recommendations of the Truth, Justice and Reconciliation Commission, the heir to the throne is preparing to stand for a third term.

In these countries, presidents and their entourage take actions that deceive no-one about their desire to remain in power through constitutional manipulation. In the past, many African heads of state have perjured themselves on this issue: Gnassingbé Eyadema in Togo in 2002, Idriss Deby Itno in Chad in 2005, Paul Biya in Cameroon in 2008, Ismaïl Omar Guelleh in Djibouti in 2010, or Yoweri Museveni in Uganda in 2010, Abdoulaye Wade in Senegal in 2012. Others, however, have opted for alternation, such as Jerry Rawlings in Ghana, Mathieu Kérékou in Benin, Pinto da Costa in Sâo Tomé e Principe, or the successive presidents Aristides Pereira, Antonio Mascarenhas and Pedro Pires in the Cape Verde Islands. Leaders attracted by the temptation of dynasty have a rendezvous with history: by accepting alternation, they would return power to its ultimate repository, the people, in a final act marked by the seal of appeasement.

For their part, the absence of any reaction from international opinion would give the African regimes concerned carte blanche to impose, even by violence, an intolerable constitutional amendment in order to stay in power. Allowing one of them to perpetrate this perjury would open the breach that would allow them all to rush in. But the domino effect can work in the opposite direction: after the changeover in Senegal in 2012, after the resignation of the outgoing president in Mozambique at the beginning of March 2014, it is time to act to obtain the conditions for a changeover elsewhere too, starting with Burkina Faso, Burundi and Togo. And in many other countries, where mobilisation is crystallising around issues other than constitutional ones (the use of biometrics, freedom of demonstration, the independence of electoral commissions, etc.). Europe was surprised by the Arab revolutions. It would be betraying its interests and values if it were to condone, by its silence, the perpetuation of archaic regimes south of the Sahara.