By Ephraim Agbo
Guinea-Bissau’s post-election crisis has rapidly escalated into one of the most ambiguous constitutional ruptures West Africa has witnessed in recent years—a crisis that looks less like a classic military coup and more like a politically engineered breakdown designed to exploit institutional fragility.
At first glance, the events followed familiar patterns: armed soldiers, seized ballot materials, a suspended electoral process, a president claiming he had been overthrown. But the deeper one digs into the timeline, the logic of actors, and the structural weakness of Guinea-Bissau’s political system, the more the crisis appears neither spontaneous nor straightforward.
A Crisis That Began Before the First Ballot Was Cast
The November 23 vote—initially declared peaceful by ECOWAS observers—was conducted in a political environment already suffocating under the weight of institutional distortions.
For nearly a year after dissolving the opposition-led parliament in December 2023, President Umaro Sissoco Embaló governed by decree. His administration sidelined the opposition, and the powerful PAIGC—the country’s historic party—was disqualified from the election on questionable legal grounds.
In essence, the election was held in a political ecosystem tilted heavily toward incumbency, where institutional independence had been eroded long before the first ballot was counted.
Thus, when armed men stormed the National Electoral Commission (CNE) and seized ballot boxes and tally sheets, it did not simply interrupt a democratic process—it exposed the extent of the vulnerabilities already created within that process.
The Strange Anatomy of an “Overthrow”
President Embaló announced he had been “overthrown.” But the details surrounding his removal do not match the anatomy of a typical West African coup.
- He retained access to international media, speaking freely.
- He was released almost immediately, without the typical detention or isolation imposed in coups.
- He was allowed to exit the country safely to Senegal.
- The junta that emerged included figures previously aligned or sympathetic to the presidency.
This combination has led diplomats to conclude that the event may represent an internally facilitated reset rather than a hostile overthrow.
A senior ECOWAS diplomat described it succinctly:
“This crisis does not follow the standard coup script. It has the fingerprints of a political realignment masquerading as military intervention.”
In other words, the military’s claim that it intervened to “prevent instability” is too convenient, given how the previous year’s constitutional environment had been engineered.
Goodluck Jonathan’s Blunt Assessment: A “Ceremonial Coup”
Former Nigerian President Goodluck Jonathan, who was in Bissau as the head of the West African Elders Forum observer mission and briefly trapped during the turmoil, has provided the most revealing assessment yet.
Jonathan has described the incident as:
“A ceremonial coup… stage-managed.”
This is an extraordinary accusation from a regional statesman known for diplomatic restraint. Jonathan insists:
- The vote had already been counted.
- A winner existed, but was not announced.
- The military intervention disrupted the declaration, not the election itself.
After briefing Nigerian President Bola Tinubu in Abuja, Jonathan stressed:
“ECOWAS and the African Union must ensure the results are announced. The crisis cannot be resolved if the will of the people remains hidden.”
His remarks shift the narrative dramatically: the real crisis may not be the military’s intervention, but the disappearance of the electoral truth.
In a region plagued by coups, Jonathan’s framing is explosive because it suggests the actors behind the crisis may have sought to manipulate the outcome rather than seize power outright.
Institutional Collapse: The Silent Author of the Crisis
What makes Guinea-Bissau’s situation particularly dangerous is that it was not triggered solely by individual actors, but by structural decay.
The country’s institutions—its courts, legislature, electoral commission, and military—do not function with the independence expected in a stable democracy. Over time:
- The executive eroded parliamentary oversight,
- The judiciary became increasingly politicised,
- The military retained abnormal political influence,
- And the electoral system lacked insulation from elite interference.
In such an environment, a political crisis need not be fully planned to be exploited. Power vacuums and institutional ambiguity create opportunities for actors—civilian or military—to manufacture outcomes.
This is why analysts argue the crisis is best understood as:
A hybrid collapse — partly political engineering, partly institutional decay, and partly military opportunism.
A Regional System Under Strain
West Africa has suffered a chain of coups: Mali, Burkina Faso, Guinea, Niger. Guinea-Bissau’s case may prove the most complicated because it lacks the clarity needed for decisive regional intervention.
ECOWAS faces a dilemma:
- If it labels the event a coup, it must impose sanctions.
- If it accepts the military’s narrative, it risks legitimising a precedent of “engineered instability.”
- If it pushes for mediation without results announcement, it could legitimise electoral erasure.
This is why Guinea-Bissau may become a critical test case:
“It challenges our frameworks for understanding democratic backsliding. It is not a coup in the classic sense, but a breakdown facilitated by weakened systems and political design,” an ECOWAS official noted.
The Missing Election Results: The Heart of the Crisis
Perhaps the most consequential fact is this:
No one—including ECOWAS, the African Union, or international observers—has been told who truly won the election.
If Jonathan is right, the results exist but have not been released.
This raises uncomfortable but unavoidable questions:
- Was the seizure of ballots intended to erase an unfavourable outcome?
- Did factions within the military act independently or in coordination with political interests?
- Is the transitional council a corrective mechanism or a mechanism of control?
Without clarity, the crisis becomes self-perpetuating, feeding mistrust and eroding legitimacy.
What Comes Next?
The military council has promised a transition but provided no timeline, no roadmap, and no guarantee that electoral results will ever be restored.
Given the destruction or disappearance of key materials, verifying the true vote may already be impossible.
The more this drags on, the more Guinea-Bissau risks entering a prolonged state of disputed authority—a hybrid limbo where neither democratic rule nor overt military rule is fully asserted.
What emerges may not be a coup regime, but a political settlement negotiated in the shadows — one that bypasses both constitutional order and voters’ will.
Conclusion: A Collapse Designed in Slow Motion
Guinea-Bissau’s crisis is not simply the story of a stolen election or a military takeover. It is the culmination of years of institutional erosion, executive overreach, judicial weakness, and the quiet re-politicisation of the military.
It is a reminder that in fragile democracies, power is not only seized by force — it can also be seized through ambiguity.
The tragedy is not only the seizure of ballot boxes, but the possibility that the real results—the people’s choice—may never be known.
Guinea-Bissau now stands as a case study in how democracies collapse not always with tanks, but with silence, disappearing documents, and engineered uncertainty.
No comments:
Post a Comment