Abstract On 26 July 2023, Mohamed Bazoum, President of Niger, was deposed by a military coup masterminded by members of his presidential guard. The military junta dissolved the government and on 28 July General Abdourahmane Tchiani, head of the presidential guard, was pronounced Niger’s military leader. Since the coup, there have been widespread responses and reactions (local and international) to the political developments in the Niger Republic. This article uses secondary sources of data to argue that the coup was not an expression of displeasure against democracy, neither did it show solidarity for an authoritarian system. It was a symptom of the failure of democracy, including the operations of its proponents (the West, and France in particular) in the Sahel. The widespread jubilation emanated from the hope that the military leadership would put in place measures to ameliorate the security and economic woes of the country. The study concludes that the security and socioeconomic improvement of the Niger Republic is not tied to either a democratic or autocratic system of government, as proclaimed in international politics by the West, especially the US and France, and Russia and China.

Abstract The Nile River has been both an engine of development and a cause of controversy among its riparian states for millennia. This paradox took on an international dimension with the inception of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Using a qualitative research method, this paper investigates the GERD controversy and the role of a benefit-sharing approach in the Nile Basin. The dam negotiations have been hampered by unjust colonial treaties, the hardline interests of Egypt and Ethiopia, politicisation, uncertainty about the consequences of the dam’s use and lopsided third-party intervention. The paper argues that the adoption of a benefit-sharing approach in the basin can sustain the Nile ecosystem, promote regional peace, increase water flow and decrease unnecessary expenses through modest intraregional cooperation. The resolution of the Nile Basin conflict thus relies on identifying the potential of the basin and on integrated cooperative frameworks adopted by the technocrats of its riparian states and international experts.

Abstract The Nile River has been both an engine of development and a cause of controversy among its riparian states for millennia. This paradox took on an international dimension with the inception of the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD). Using a qualitative research method, this paper investigates the GERD controversy and the role of a benefit-sharing approach in the Nile Basin. The dam negotiations have been hampered by unjust colonial treaties, the hardline interests of Egypt and Ethiopia, politicisation, uncertainty about the consequences of the dam’s use and lopsided third-party intervention. The paper argues that the adoption of a benefit-sharing approach in the basin can sustain the Nile ecosystem, promote regional peace, increase water flow and decrease unnecessary expenses through modest intraregional cooperation. The resolution of the Nile Basin conflict thus relies on identifying the potential of the basin and on integrated cooperative frameworks adopted by the technocrats of its riparian states and international experts.

Abstract Hydropolitical relations have long attracted the world of academia, and hydrohegemony and counter-hydrohegemony frameworks have recently become important in analysing power relations between riparian states. However, little attention has been given to the hydrohegemonic situation of the Nile River. This study tries to analyse this status, specifically in the Eastern Nile Basin. The data, elicited through unstructured interviews from purposively selected informants, has been analysed thematically. The findings reveal that Egypt aspires to be a hegemon in the basin but is not. Despite its use of different coercive and subtle mechanisms to induce ideational or hegemonic compliance, these have not been successful: Ethiopia has not consented to or accepted Egypt’s claim over the Nile. Concomitantly, since the 1990s, Ethiopia’s position has transcended from veiled to overt contest, which anticipates a new order, challenging the monopolistic position of Egypt.

Abstract Hydropolitical relations have long attracted the world of academia, and hydrohegemony and counter-hydrohegemony frameworks have recently become important in analysing power relations between riparian states. However, little attention has been given to the hydrohegemonic situation of the Nile River. This study tries to analyse this status, specifically in the Eastern Nile Basin. The data, elicited through unstructured interviews from purposively selected informants, has been analysed thematically. The findings reveal that Egypt aspires to be a hegemon in the basin but is not. Despite its use of different coercive and subtle mechanisms to induce ideational or hegemonic compliance, these have not been successful: Ethiopia has not consented to or accepted Egypt’s claim over the Nile. Concomitantly, since the 1990s, Ethiopia’s position has transcended from veiled to overt contest, which anticipates a new order, challenging the monopolistic position of Egypt.

Abstract In 2010, Zanzibar, a sub-state within the United Republic of Tanzania, became a unique case of power sharing in Africa. The country conducted a referendum before establishing a government of national unity and entrenched it in Zanzibar’s Constitution of 1984. The aim was to make the power-sharing system durable and rooted in society to achieve peace and development. Nevertheless, a political system must be accepted, practised and routinised to be rooted in society. Usually, peace settlements involve elites, who negotiate, sign and occasionally benefit from the pact—and Zanzibar is not an exception. What is missing in peace negotiations is the broad-based participation of the citizens. Based on a survey and expert interviews, this article examines how power sharing in Zanzibar has nevertheless become rooted in society over time.

Abstract In 2010, Zanzibar, a sub-state within the United Republic of Tanzania, became a unique case of power sharing in Africa. The country conducted a referendum before establishing a government of national unity and entrenched it in Zanzibar’s Constitution of 1984. The aim was to make the power-sharing system durable and rooted in society to achieve peace and development. Nevertheless, a political system must be accepted, practised and routinised to be rooted in society. Usually, peace settlements involve elites, who negotiate, sign and occasionally benefit from the pact—and Zanzibar is not an exception. What is missing in peace negotiations is the broad-based participation of the citizens. Based on a survey and expert interviews, this article examines how power sharing in Zanzibar has nevertheless become rooted in society over time.

Abstract Burkina Faso has faced a security crisis unlike any other in its history for the past eight years. The government has lost control of up to 35 % of the national territory, and there are as many as two million internally displaced persons living in the big cities. The emblematic figure of Thomas Sankara, Burkina Faso’s president from 1984 to 1987, has soared beyond the local image of the “upright man” (the ideal to which the very name “Burkina Faso” refers) to that of a globally recognised icon of resistance against imperialism. Theatre artists are inspired to create theatrical performances that “represent” (or “face up”) this great figure, as the recent edition of the Ouagadougou-based biannual theatre festival called Les Récréâtrales invited them to do. This paper emphasises theatre’s contribution to efforts of artistic resilience and resistance in Burkina Faso. It addresses the question: How do Burkinabè artists produce acts of artistic resilience through performance? In other words, does the staging proposed by the Burkinabè playwright Aristide Tarnagda carry the seeds of hope for a Burkina Faso entirely liberated from terrorism? The theory of communication developed by J.L. Austin in How to Do Things With Words (1962) and Anne Ubersfeld’s (1982) semiotic analysis theory provide the key critical concepts of this study.