Thomas Sankara not killed in 1987

Suppose Thomas Sankara survives the coup attempt in 1987. How would Burkina Faso have continued to develop, and what influence would it have had on the region? Could it have been approaching developed status by now?
 
Most Communist countries tend to do quite well in the first years before their developments slows down for different reasons (people getting upset about shortages, loss of revolutionary spirit, increasing bureaucracy means increasing corruption and inefficiency...), so I suspect that it might have helped Sankara's reputation that he died early.
If not, he might have faced the problems every Communist regime quickly faces.
 

destiple

Banned
atleast he was not corrupt like other african leaders
maybe he inspires a african revival movement with cult following in many other neighboring african countries ?
Kind of like Qaddafi of early 70s?
 
Sankara could not have developed Burkina Faso. His country is too isolated, too small, and with not enough resources to possibly approach developed status. But Sankarism seemed to have an interesting spirit to it compared to other leftist movements in Africa. Sankara was very much against the idea of a cult of personality, and condemned his fellow left-wing African rulers who splurged on imports from Europe--for instance, Sankara sold all the luxury cars owned by government employees and replaced them with cheap economy cars.

It seems to me that if Sankara had been more willing, he would have eliminated Blaise Compaoré before Compaoré eliminated him. If he had, I think in many ways Burkina Faso would emerge as a "model" for other developing nations in Africa. Sankara and his forces would keep corruption lower than many countries in the region (you don't want to be called out by one of Sankara's revolutionary committees, after all), and his economic policies would enable a sustainable development policy for Burkina Faso. Population growth would be lowered and education would be much higher, which would hopefully lead to a stronger economy. And as the Ivory Coast devolves into civil war in the early 2000s, Burkina Faso could have a huge influence in the conflict given the amount of expatriate Burkinabé people there.

Likely, Sankara would still be ruling to this day, or he would otherwise have a huge influence in the politics of his country.

Overall, Sankarist Burkina Faso will likely end up one of the better places of sub-Saharan Africa, and likely far better than OTL Burkina Faso.
 
If Sankara had lived longer, he probably would have just turned into a West African version of Hugo Chavez. Sankara was well-intentioned, but ultimately no dictator has made an African country prosperous. Eventually he would've passed away, resulting in a violent succession struggle, or rebel groups would have taken up arms against him. Enlightened absolutism isn't a useful development model.
Place like Burkina Faso need more Seretse Khamas and less Thomas Sankaras.
 
Last edited:
Sankara was well-intentioned, but ultimately no dictator has made an African country prosperous. Eventually he would've passed away, resulting in a violent succession struggle, or rebel groups would have taken up arms against him. Enlightened absolutism isn't a useful development model.

While I initially agreed with you, I now think that your theory is flawed. Think of pre-modern societies like the Roman Empire or Imperial China. Consider Saudi-Arabia or contemporary China. There are a lot of examples of autocratic regimes achieving economic development and prosperity, despite the corruption and succession problems affecting authoritarian systems.
 
If Sankara had lived longer, he probably would have just turned into a West Africa version of Hugo Chavez. Sankara was well-intentioned, but ultimately no dictator has made an African country prosperous. Eventually he would've passed away, resulting in a violent succession struggle, or rebel groups would have taken up arms against him. Enlightened absolutism isn't a useful development model.

Place like Burkina Faso need more Seretse Khamas and less Thomas Sankaras.

Sure, Seretse Khama is a good example, but on the other hand, Ethiopia and Rwanda are run by autocratic regimes and they're two of the most rapidly developing countries in the entire world. Sankara he could have raised the standard of living significantly nonetheless.
 
While I initially agreed with you, I now think that your theory is flawed. Think of pre-modern societies like the Roman Empire or Imperial China. Consider Saudi-Arabia or contemporary China. There are a lot of examples of autocratic regimes achieving economic development and prosperity, despite the corruption and succession problems affecting authoritarian systems.
Those have different structures and impulses.
The Roman Empire and Imperial China did not achieve modern levels of prosperity. They were by our standards, extremely poor, with dismal levels of productivity and commercialization. They were able to effectively manage an economy which was not far from the subsidence level, quite impressively so given their technological level, but they had fundamental limitations to their systems, and those limitations were far away from those of a modern developed nation.
Saudi Arabia's success is a unique one, built off of its natural resource base.
China's authoritarian and autocratic government is the opposite direction to that of Sankara's: liberalization, the free market, private property, decreased state control, increased international trade, and expanded foreign investment. Even still, it is still notable what sectors of China have grown, and what have not. The Chinese coast is today very rich, in some regions at essentially developed world standards. The Chinese interior, which is much more analogous to Burkina Faso, is still mired in poverty. In Africa, the countries which are today growing the fastest, are the coastal countries, while those in the interior are still economically troubled.

It isn't that Sankara couldn't achieve impressive short-term effects. What is fundamentally doubtful is his ability to achieve the success that would lead him to being a developed nation. That path has only been trod by nations with free markets, private enterprise, international trade, and a relatively free economy which has some semblance of a rule of law. Sankara's reforms were going in the opposite direction, and although their results may have been impressive in the short term, they have definite limitations. Personally in my opinion, Sankara had the right time to die: he died a martyr before the problems his strategy had started revealing themselves. This isn't to paint him with too ill of a brush, because he did do good things, just that Sankara's regime had inherent contradictions for long-term economic growth and development, and in time these would start to reveal themselves regardless of a coup and French activity or not.
 
If Sankara had lived longer, he probably would have just turned into a West African version of Hugo Chavez.

Sankara was well-intentioned, but ultimately no dictator has made an African country prosperous. Eventually he would've passed away, resulting in a violent succession struggle, or rebel groups would have taken up arms against him. Enlightened absolutism isn't a useful development model.
Place like Burkina Faso need more Seretse Khamas and less Thomas Sankaras.

Unlike Chavez's Venezuela, Burkina Faso had no resource like oil to (overtly) rely on. While today's Burkina Faso mainly relies on gold mining, I think Sankara's Burkina Faso would have diversified to some degree (even in nowadays Burkina Faso, gold mining isn't even half of the government's exports). I could definitely see Sankarist Burkina Faso evolving along the lines of the Kerala model (although perhaps not as democratic). Literacy and educational development would be very high for West Africa, and women much more incorporated into the economy. The fertility rate would be much lower and more sustainable. Although Burkina Faso would suffer huge brain drain, these emigrants would send home significant amounts of remittances back home (moreso than OTL's Burkinabé emigrants).

Like Kerala, Burkina Faso would still be rather poor. In fact, I doubt it could reach Kerala's GDP per capita of $2,400 or HDI of 0.712. But a significantly higher GDP per capita (maybe around $1,500-2,000) and HDI (maybe 0.5-0.6) is definitely possible under Sankarism. This would be one of the highest GDP per capita and HDI in the region, and especially impressive for an inland African state.

Sure, Seretse Khama is a good example, but on the other hand, Ethiopia and Rwanda are run by autocratic regimes and they're two of the most rapidly developing countries in the entire world. Sankara he could have raised the standard of living significantly nonetheless.

Seretse Khama's Botswana Democratic Party also never lost an election and Botswana is to this day a one-party state (although not necessarily autocratic--basically like Japan under the LDP until the 90s). And of course, look at Lee Kuan Yew in Singapore or Park Chung-hee in South Korea.

Ethiopia following a China model of development--rather capitalist, but also very authoritarian--might be how Burkina Faso would proceed after Sankara's death (odds are he'd still be alive today since he'd only be 68 years old right now). Although there's always the chance of going full-Maduro afterwards, with a much less capable successor (though Maduro's problems are in large part related to the collapse of oil prices--I doubt Chavez would have coped much better).
 
Last edited:
Sure, Seretse Khama is a good example, but on the other hand, Ethiopia and Rwanda are run by autocratic regimes and they're two of the most rapidly developing countries in the entire world. Sankara he could have raised the standard of living significantly nonetheless.
I can't speak much to Ethiopia's case, but Rwanda's economic growth isn't sustainable. Its made remarkable progress, but around around a third of the state's budget is still financed by foreign aid. Kagame wants to move up the ladder from agriculture and mining to a knowledge and service-oriented economy, but he hasn't allowed the necessary reforms around are expression to make the transition. The Tutsis are justly terrified of handing power back to the Tutsis through majority rule, but winner-take all ethnic politics incentive another Hutu rebel group's formation once the economic bubble bursts.
Ivory Coast tried the Singapore style model of authoritarian capitalism, but it only worked for a decade or so. They posted 6-7% GDP growth for more than 10 consecutive years, but imploded into civil war after a steep decline in cocoa prices.
 
Sankara would've become like almost any other well-intentioned African leader: nothing more than a tin-pot dictator betraying his own ideals after having tasted power for too long.
 
Sankara would've become like almost any other well-intentioned African leader: nothing more than a tin-pot dictator betraying his own ideals after having tasted power for too long.

Perhaps he would, but he wouldn't do it as bad as other dictators did. Again, he sold all the government cars in the country and replaced them with cheap economy cars. His own house had very little but a bed and some guitars (as he was a musician and wrote the Burkinabé national anthem, which is a pretty nice sounding national anthem). Sankara often criticised other left-wing dictators in Africa for their extravagence (fleets of luxury cars, fancy imports, etc.). He was cut from a different mold than many leftist dictators in Africa. If anything, Sankara was overly idealistic, and that's why internal forces (i.e. Blaise Compaoré) combined with France's efforts was able to have him removed.
 
Sankara would've become like almost any other well-intentioned African leader: nothing more than a tin-pot dictator betraying his own ideals after having tasted power for too long.
That is rather judgmental. The reasons for this is not simply because its in africa, but because none of those were really well intentioned. Sankara even had a defense to being corrupted, he lived in a simple hut. He did measures to prevent it. If he did get corrupted, he would not go full Qaddafi.
 
Top