inexorably to the most feared civil war. I just hope
I am wrong!
Stef Vandeginste: “The ruling is fundamentally
flawed”
The Burundian Constitution is somewhat
ambiguous, in that article 302 provides an
exception for the first President elected after the
peace process. This President was elected (in
August 2005) by the members of parliament, not
directly by Burundian citizens. This raises the
question whether this first presidential term falls
under the presidential term limit laid down in
article 96 of the Constitution. Incumbent President
Nkurunziza and his supporters claim that, because
of the exception in article 302, he is allowed to
run for an additional term (2015-2020). On 4
May 2015, the Constitutional Court was asked
for an interpretation of articles 96 and 302 of the
Constitution. The Court based its interpretation
on the Arusha Peace and Reconciliation
Agreement of August 2000, which contained the
blueprint of the current Constitution. And this
is where the ruling is fundamentally flawed. The
Arusha Agreement unambiguously states that
no President can serve more than two terms.
Insofar as the Arusha Agreement is a source of
constitutional law – which, for the first time ever,
the Court confirms it is – it does not leave any
room for a third presidential term. The fact that
the vice-president of the Court fled the country
denouncing the intimidation and pressure exerted
on the Court judges adds to the controversy
around the ruling.
Bert Ingelaere: “Fear is a bad advisor”
Most of the demonstrations against President
Nkurunziza’s bid for a third presidential mandate
took place in Burundi’s capital Bujumbura. This
is not unexpected since contestation movements
usually emerge in or focus their energy on the
capital. In Burundi, it is also related to the fact
that Nkurunziza has never been popular with most
of the capital’s residents. Nkurunziza’s base of
power is the countryside. In this context, I would
like to highlight some evolutions I observed in
the Burundian hills over the last couple of years.
These can be useful to understand both the
contestation as well as its relative absence in the
countryside. These insights might also shed light
on what is about to follow or not, with rumors
of a new rebellion in the making. Over the years,
the ruling party has managed to establish and
deepen its presence throughout Burundi’s hills.
State and party have almost become synonymous.
This is coupled with an almost weekly presence
of Nkurunziza somewhere in the hills where
he, for example, helps with the coffee harvest.
He is a populist and therefore also popular
with the largely uneducated peasantry. But his
popularity started to decline in recent years.
Simply having brought peace after a decade of
war and claiming to have overturned historical
injustice is not sufficient anymore. People and
primarily young people expect more, especially
in the economic domain. And many do not
benefit from the clientelistic tendencies of some
in the omnipresent ruling party. It explains the
contestation, also from within his own party, but
I doubt whether this is currently a fertile ground
on which to mount a large-scale rebellion as some
of his adversaries claim they will do. The sense of
injustice and frustration does not seem to have
reached a boiling point for such a thing to happen.
But one does not need to have a massive fighting
force to reach havoc. Paralysis can come from
terror tactics. What is certain is that, since the
start of the crisis, most of the people in Burundi’s
hills, across the ethnic divide and the political
spectrum, live in deep fear for what is about to
follow the next day and the one after that. Fear
is a bad advisor and historical awareness of past
mass violence should not be underestimated
when people contemplate their courses of action.
Filip Reyntjens: “Burundi crisis is a failure of
democracy”
The best way to deal with diversity is to adopt
democracy and respect human rights. A system
based on citizenship not sectarian affiliations is
theoretically the best. That being said, in the real
world this is not always easy. In plural societies,
democracy often leads to the oppression of
minorities. Burundi has adopted a consociational
system. This means that the reality of ethnicity
is acknowledged. It is institutionalized through
practices such a quota,