With the wave of military coups reshaping West Africa’s political landscape, the region now finds itself in a phase in which unconstitutional changes of government are no longer just episodic disruptions but are now part of a deeper crisis of democratic legitimacy and regional authority.
Between 2020 and 2025, military coups have caused changes in the top leadership of five countries in the region – Mali (2020 and 2021), Guinea (2021), Burkina Faso (twice in 2022), Niger (2023), and renewed instability in Guinea-Bissau (2025).
These events are often treated as isolated breakdowns of constitutional order. However, taken together, they reveal structural weakening of democratic institutions and declining public confidence in civilian rule.
The regional institutions – the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) and the African Union (AU) – have responded to the growing crisis in the way they usually do: they imposed sanctions and suspensions, and made repeated calls for a rapid transition to civilian rule. While these responses signal normative commitment to constitutional order, their effectiveness is increasingly contested, exposing a widening gap between regional principles and political realities.
Fragmented regional response
ECOWAS and the AU operate as the principal custodians of democratic norms in West Africa, but their enforcement logic is uneven.
The AU primarily functions through norm-setting, declarations, and suspensions under frameworks such as the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance. ECOWAS, by contrast, relies on coercive tools that include sanctions, diplomatic isolation, and border closures.
This division has produced a structural imbalance: one institution articulates norms without a strong enforcement capacity, while the other one enforces without a sustained political strategy. The result is a reactive governance system that struggles to influence the trajectory of political transitions once military actors consolidate power.
A central analytical error is to treat coups as the root cause of instability. In reality, they are often the culmination of longer processes of institutional erosion.
Electoral credibility has weakened across West Africa as constitutional amendments in several states extended executive tenure and opposition parties continued to operate in increasingly constrained political environments. Electoral management bodies have frequently been contested, and political trust has steadily declined.
Research shows that military coups in Africa are more likely to occur in contexts marked by weak governance, corruption, and declining legitimacy. In such environments, military intervention is often domestically framed, not simply as a seizure of power, but as a corrective to perceived systemic failure.
READ MORE: The architecture of accountability: New UN resolution could signal end to climate ambiguity
This framing becomes particularly significant when coups are justified in the language of democratic restoration rather than rupture.
Paradox of ‘democratic coups’
Not all coups are presented as anti-democratic interventions; some are justified as efforts to rescue democracy from internal degradation.
Legal scholar Ozan O. Varol conceptualises this phenomenon as the “democratic coup d’état”, in which military actors justify their intervention as a temporary corrective measure to authoritarian drift, with the stated objective of restoring civilian rule. In this framing, the military does not reject democracy; it repositions itself as its guardian.
The appeal of this logic lies in its ambiguity. It draws legitimacy from democratic language while suspending democratic procedures. In this case, the coup becomes a transitional mechanism rather than an endpoint.
However, this transitional claim carries structural risks. Once military actors assume responsibility for democratic restoration, they also gain influence over transition timelines, institutional design, and political sequencing. What begins as a corrective intervention can evolve into managed political engineering under transitional authority. This dynamic is visible in several West African transitions, particularly in Guinea.
The case of Guinea, which has had a long history of military coups and autocratic rule since its independence in 1958, illustrates how transitional authority can reshape democratic trajectories without fully restoring the pre-coup political order. In September 2021, a military junta led by Mamady Doumbouya removed President Alpha Condé, the country’s first democratically elected president, suspended the constitution, and dissolved state institutions. The coup was widely condemned, and ECOWAS and the AU imposed sanctions against the junta while demanding that the country return to constitutional rule.
A transition framework was subsequently announced. However, rather than restoring the pre-coup constitutional order, the transitional authorities retained significant control over the political roadmap, including institutional reforms and electoral sequencing.
A major turning point came with the constitutional referendum of September 2025, which introduced a new legal framework. Reports and analyses indicate that the revised constitutional arrangements altered eligibility conditions for political participation, including provisions that reshaped the landscape and opened the space for actors associated with the transitional authority to participate in future electoral competition.
Return-to-civilian-rule process
In the subsequent presidential election cycle in late 2025, Guinea moved into a formal return-to-civilian-rule process. Doumbouya emerged as a leading political figure within this transition environment and the outcome of the electoral process was widely interpreted as consolidating the transitional leadership’s hold on state institutions.
ECOWAS normalised relations with Guinea after the January 2026 inauguration of Doumbouya as the new president, signalling regional acceptance of the post-transition political order.
The key analytical issue in this case is not simply whether elections occurred, but how the conditions of political competition were structured during the transition. When transitional authorities control constitutional reform, electoral sequencing, and political eligibility, the boundary between democratic restoration and institutional consolidation becomes increasingly blurred.
Guinea, therefore, reflects a broader regional pattern in which coups evolve into reconfigured political systems rather than ending in direct civilian restoration.
A major weakness in the West African governance frameworks is the inconsistent application of democratic norms. ECOWAS and the AU respond rapidly to military coups. However, gradual constitutional manipulations, such as term-limit extensions, judicial restructuring, and electoral system engineering, rarely trigger equivalent sanctions or diplomatic pressure.
This creates a normative asymmetry; military interventions are treated as violations of order, while incremental institutional erosion is often treated as domestic political adjustment. Yet both actions can produce the same outcomes: weakened accountability, reduced political competition, and declining legitimacy.
Unintended consequences
Over time, this inconsistency undermines preventive governance and weakens the credibility of regional norms.
In Guinea, Condé engineered a referendum in early 2020 to change the constitution and give himself a third term in office. This sparked widespread protests that his security apparatus ruthlessly quelled, leading to the death of several civilians. This soured the subsequent elections that the incumbent won later in the year, sparking widespread political unrest, leading to the coup almost a year later.
Sanctions remain the primary ECOWAS instrument in response to unconstitutional changes of government. However, their effectiveness has become increasingly limited.
The sanctions imposed on Mali, Burkina Faso, and Niger for their military coups have not produced rapid democratic transitions. Instead, they have generated unintended consequences, including pushing the three countries to withdraw from ECOWAS and form their own group, the Alliance of Sahel States. The three states have cut relations with their former Western allies, replacing them with Russian mercenaries, as security continued to deteriorate in the face of heightened terrorist attacks mounted by militant Islamist groups. Their economic situations have worsened as a return to constitutional rule seems increasingly uncertain.
Meanwhile, it is the states’ civilian populations that have to absorb the resulting economic pressure, while the transitional authorities remain politically insulated.
In several cases, sanctions have reinforced nationalist narratives, enabling military governments to frame themselves as the defenders of sovereignty against external interference. This reduces external leverage and complicates diplomatic engagement.
While sanctions were effective in earlier African crises, their impact in recent Sahel transitions has been less decisive, suggesting diminishing returns in the context of entrenched military governance.
However, not all regional responses rely on coercion.
Following contested elections in Sierra Leone in 2023, ECOWAS and regional partners supported structured dialogue between the political actors. Rather than imposing sanctions, they facilitated negotiations aimed at addressing electoral grievances and rebuilding trust in the electoral management processes.
Alternative model of regional engagement
Although political tensions persisted, the process demonstrated an alternative model of regional engagement based on mediation rather than punishment. It also reinforced the idea that legitimacy can sometimes be restored through negotiated institutional repair, particularly where state institutions remain functional.
The central challenge facing West African regional governance is not the absence of normative frameworks but the inconsistency in their application.
ALSO READ: Eight African candidates vie for ICC bench in December elections
Military coups trigger immediate sanctions and suspensions. Constitutional manipulation is often tolerated or weakly addressed. Transitional arrangements that consolidate power can be accepted as legitimate pathways back to constitutional order.
This inconsistency produces a cyclical pattern: weak institutions generate coups, coups produce managed transitions, and managed transitions often fail to restore durable legitimacy. Therefore, such regional responses address the symptoms of instability rather than its structural drivers.
The crisis in West Africa is not solely about military interventions; it reflects a deeper erosion of democratic legitimacy and the limits of regional authority in managing political transformation.
The Guinea case illustrates how coups can evolve into a reconfigured political order rather than ending in straightforward democratic restoration. This challenges the assumption that elections alone are sufficient indicators of democratic recovery.
If ECOWAS and the African Union are to strengthen their credibility, they will need to expand their focus beyond military coups to include gradual processes of constitutional and institutional manipulation that, over time, erode democratic competition.
Without such recalibration, the region risks entrenching a political cycle in which coups are imperfectly deterred, transitions are unevenly managed, and democracy becomes increasingly procedural rather than substantive.
Ibrahim Sanda Barrie is a researcher and policy analyst specialising in the politico-security dynamics of West Africa, with particular scholarly expertise in conflict prevention, transitional justice, governance, and regional security architecture.
