Unconstitutional Changes of Government: The Democrat’s Dilemma in Africa

This policy briefing by the South African Institute of International Affairs examines the African Union's (AU) principle of rejecting unconstitutional changes of government. It analyzes the 'democrat's dilemma'—the tension between maintaining constitutional order and supporting popular uprisings against authoritarian regimes—specifically in the context of the 2011 Maghreb revolutions.

• Since 2002, the African Union (AU) has established a practice of rejecting unconstitutional changes of government, distinguishing it from the previous Organisation of African Unity (OAU). This principle has been applied through sanctions and suspensions in member states such as Madagascar, Togo, Guinea, Niger, Mauritania, and Côte d’Ivoire.
• The AU defines 'unconstitutional change of government' based on the 2000 Lomé Declaration as: military coups against democratically elected governments; mercenary interventions; replacement of governments by armed dissidents or rebels; and the refusal of an incumbent government to hand over power after free and fair elections.
• The 2007 African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance added a fifth element to the definition: any amendment or revision of the constitution or legal instruments that infringes on the principles of democratic change of government. This was intended to prevent leaders, such as Presidents Museveni of Uganda and Biya of Cameroon, from extending their time in office by tampering with term limits.
• Eight AU member states have faced suspension or sanctions for unconstitutional changes of government: Madagascar, Togo, Central African Republic, Mauritania, Guinea, Niger, Guinea-Bissau, and Côte d’Ivoire. Most were responses to coups, except for Côte d’Ivoire, where Laurent Gbagbo refused to leave office after the 2010 election.
• The 2011 uprisings in North Africa created a 'democrat's dilemma' for the AU, as popular movements to remove heads of state are technically unconstitutional changes of government. The AU Peace and Security Council (PSC) eventually supported the 'legitimate aspirations' of people in Egypt and Libya, despite these countries being 'big 5' members and the PSC containing other authoritarian states like Equatorial Guinea, Zimbabwe, and Chad.
• The author recommends that the Pan-African Parliament (PAP) should urge national parliaments to ratify the African Charter on Democracy, Elections and Governance, develop guidelines for steering popular uprisings toward constitutional democracy, and push the PSC to be more consistent in sanctioning leaders who refuse to leave office after losing elections, citing Zimbabwe in 2008 and Côte d’Ivoire in 2010.

APA

Sturman, K. (2011). Unconstitutional Changes of Government: The Democrat’s Dilemma in Africa. South African Institute of International Affairs. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Policy-Briefing-30.pdf

Chicago

Sturman, Kathryn. Unconstitutional Changes of Government: The Democrat’s Dilemma in Africa. South African Institute of International Affairs, 2011. https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Policy-Briefing-30.pdf.

Wikipedia

{{cite report |last1=Sturman |first1=Kathryn |title=Unconstitutional Changes of Government: The Democrat’s Dilemma in Africa |publisher=South African Institute of International Affairs |date=30 March 2011 |url=https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Policy-Briefing-30.pdf |access-date=17 August 2026 |via=Climate Insights Directory}}

BibTeX

@techreport{sturman2011unconstitutional, author = {Sturman, Kathryn}, title = {{Unconstitutional Changes of Government: The Democrat’s Dilemma in Africa}}, institution = {South African Institute of International Affairs}, year = {2011}, month = mar, url = {https://saiia.org.za/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/Policy-Briefing-30.pdf}, urldate = {2026-08-17}, note = {Indexed by Climate Insights Directory} }