icon caret Arrow Down Arrow Left Arrow Right Arrow Up Line Camera icon set icon set Ellipsis icon set Facebook Favorite Globe Hamburger List Mail Map Marker Map Microphone Minus PDF Play Print RSS Search Share Trash Crisiswatch Alerts and Trends Box - 1080/761 Copy Twitter Video Camera  copyview Whatsapp Youtube
Insights from the Burundian Crisis (I): An Army Divided and Losing its Way
Insights from the Burundian Crisis (I): An Army Divided and Losing its Way
Burundi: Charm Offensive or Real Change?
Burundi: Charm Offensive or Real Change?
Soldiers, who are escorting Burundi’s President Pierre Nkurunziza, hold their weapons in Bujumbura, Burundi, on 17 May 2015. REUTERS/Goran Tomasevic
Commentary / Africa

Insights from the Burundian Crisis (I): An Army Divided and Losing its Way

On the morning of 11 September, Burundian army Chief of Staff Prime Niyongabo escaped an assassination attempt in the south of the country. Three servicemen in his escort weren’t so lucky and were killed. One month earlier, another high-ranking officer, head of the intelligence services General Adolphe Nshimirimana, was shot dead in broad daylight in the capital Bujumbura.

Despite the silencing of independent media and the resulting information blackout, many Burundians believe other military officers are behind these attacks. Only military personnel would have access to the information and weapons required to ambush high-ranking officers. The arrests of military personnel that followed appeared to confirm this suspicion.

Not long ago, Burundi’s army was considered the greatest success of the 2000 Arusha peace accords, which brought a gradual end to a civil war that began in 1993. Today, the army is nearing its breaking point. Its silence since President Nkurunziza’s re-election in July contrasts starkly with the increase in violence in the country and with the army’s internal divisions.

Integrated but not United

A key point of the Arusha accords was the army’s composition. Burundi has a long tradition of military regimes: Successive presidents between 1966 and 1993 (Captain Micombero, Colonel Bagaza and Major Buyoya) all came to power through coups and the army was the primary centre of power. Its internal make-up was thus of great strategic significance for parties negotiating peace in Arusha. That is why Arusha stipulates that the army should no longer play a political role but instead unite former enemies: it should be composed equally of the country’s two main ethnic groups, meaning soldiers of the former regime, the ex-Armed forces of Burundi (ex-FAB), which are predominantly Tutsi, and militiamen of the majority Hutu armed groups that had been fighting against the Tutsi-led regimes.

The successful integration of former rebels into the armed forces was partly an achievement of the international community, which supervised the process, and the commitments of South Africa and other guarantors of the Arusha agreement, such as the UN, the African Union (AU), Belgium, France, and others. Precisely because former opposition fighters of the Council for the Defense of Democracy-Forces for the Defense of Democracy (CNDD-FDD), the National Forces of Liberation (FNL) could be integrated peacefully, the army became a symbol of the Arusha compromise. The local population as well as the international community began to perceive it as an apolitical force for stability. As a result, the army won support from various international partners, including the U.S., France and the Netherlands, and took on an active role in AU and UN peacekeeping missions.

However, during CNDD-FDD member President Nkurunziza’s second term between 2010 and 2015, the army’s supposed unity and apolitical nature was perhaps already overestimated. In fact, while its participation in the African Union’s 2007 operation in Somalia appeared to reinforce cohesion, differences and political affiliations dating from the civil war persisted. For example, the CNDD-FDD dominated government continued to favour the former CNDD-FDD fighters for training opportunities abroad or deployment in peacekeeping missions. Officers had their own terms to differentiate members of the old guard from those of the armed groups: the first being the ex-FAB (mostly Tutsi) and the second PMPA (Parties and Armed Political Movements, mostly Hutu), comprising members of former rebel factions like the CNDD-FDD. Systems of dual command based on partisan affiliations were also not unheard of. The army was perhaps an integrated institution, but it was not a united one.

From an Electoral Crisis to an Army in Crisis

When the electoral crisis started in April and people took to the streets to protest against President Nkurunziza’s candidacy every day, unease grew within the army. Officers intervened several times in April and May between police and demonstrators. These attempts to lower tensions, while seemingly positive, resulted in at least two lethal “incidents” between police and soldiers, killing two soldiers and heightening tensions between the two security institutions. The army itself has diverging views on how to respond to the street protests: for some, the army’s apolitical stance precludes it from getting involved in what it perceives as a “political struggle”; for others, the army should prevent these protests from challenging the government in power.

The failed 13 May coup attempt, organised by General Niyombaré from the CNDD-FDD while the president was attending an East Africa Community summit in Tanzania, changed the situation.

Unease turned into fear. Because it exposed a disloyal faction within the army’s high command, the coup attempt has been followed to a quiet repression. Officers of the Para commando camp and the logistic Brigade, commonly called Base, have been kidnapped by agents of police and the national intelligence service SNR under suspicion of planning another coup. Some have come back, others have not. Some officers have even deserted – the latest ones are the Lieutenant Colonel Edouard Nshimirimana and Major Ndayikeza, deputy commander of the Muha camp.

Shortly after the failed coup, then minister of defence, ex-FAB Major General Pontien Gaciyubwenge, took refuge in Belgium, effectively ending the unofficial arrangement that the defence minister and chief of staff each represent a faction of the army (ex-FAB and PMPA). The new Minister of Defence Emmanuel Ntahomvukiye called for unity within the army as soon as he took office, but is not from the ex-FAB military old guard. In addition to this shift in the political balance within the military hierarchy, officers serving in peacekeeping operations are experiencing wage arrears.

Hunting Down the Plotters?

As attacks against military posts by unidentified armed persons have continued since July, with one attack targeting the presidential palace at the end of September, the government has implemented anti-coup measures targeting the ex-FAB. It removed some Tutsi officers from their command posts and appointed them to remote units. Officers of the former FNL rebellion were not spared. According to some sources, several Tutsi soldiers in the special Brigade of protection of institutions (BSPI) were replaced by colleagues from the CNDD-FDD.

According to a credible source, “Burundian peacekeepers returning from the [UN] peacekeeping mission in the Central African Republic left all their weapons to their replacements. Once in Bujumbura, ex-FAB soldiers were given a rifle with a single full magazine. But PMPA members were given a rifle with two or three full magazines, which shocked the ex-FAB”. Military officers have not escaped increasingly frequent, but selective, police searches, the source said: “When policemen arrive at an officer’s house, they ask if he is a PMPA or an ex-FAB. If he is a PMPA, they do not enter or they enter and pretend to search. But if he is an ex-FAB, they search everywhere, even under the mattress or in the ceiling”.

As Nkurunziza’s third mandate begins, every new desertion and every new murder is exacerbating the rift between the regime and the army. The regime is suspicious of the army and the army is suspicious of the regime. In the Burundian political and security equation, the army today is an increasingly unknown quantity. Its growing dissatisfaction means more desertions, more violence and undoubtedly more coup attempts.

Evariste Ndayishimiye, Burundi's elected President from the ruling party, the National Council for the Defense of Democracy - Forces for the Defense of Democracy, attends the swearing-in ceremony at Ingoma stadium in Gitega, Burundi, on 18 June 2020. ONESPHORE NIBIGIRA / AFP
Q&A / Africa

Burundi: Charm Offensive or Real Change?

In his year in office, Burundian President Evariste Ndayishimiye has shown an appetite for reform and re-engagement with international partners. In this Q &A, Crisis Group experts assess whether ruling-party hardliners will hold the country back from turning a corner.

A year ago, Ndayishimiye took office only days after the unexpected death of his predecessor Pierre Nkurunziza. Does the new president represent continuity or change?

Elected in May 2020, President Evariste Ndayishimiye assumed power over a deeply troubled country. He took the reins from his late predecessor Pierre Nkurunziza, who had led Burundi into a protracted crisis over his fifteen years in office and had died shortly after Ndayishimiye’s election.

The country is still reeling from the former president’s successful bid to stay on for a third term in office in 2015. Many saw Nkurunziza’s manoeuvre then as contrary to the 2000 Arusha Accords, which brought an end to a brutal civil war between the ethnic Tutsi minority that had ruled for decades and the Hutu majority. These machinations led in 2015 to street protests, a failed coup attempt, a crackdown and the exodus of over 400,000 people.

After winning flawed elections that year, Nkurunziza stepped up crackdowns on the media, opposition and civil society groups, and increasingly insisted on outlandish displays of public devotion: the ruling party formally referred to him as a “visionary” and the “supreme guide for patriotism”. Donors including the European Union (EU), concerned by mounting rights abuses, cut direct budget support to Burundi. As investor confidence tanked and standards of living plummeted, the ruling party’s Imbonerakure youth militia, key to Nkurunziza’s machinery of repression, began collecting forced financial contributions from the exhausted citizenry. Burundi’s relationship with neighbouring Rwanda also nosedived. Nkurunziza accused his counterpart Paul Kagame of supporting proxy armed groups against Burundi, and vice versa.

While Ndayishimiye’s rise to power marked the end of Nkurunziza’s personality cult, the new president will still have to placate powerful factions in the ruling Conseil national pour la défense de la démocratie – Forces pour la défense de la démocratie (CNDD-FDD), which started its life as a Hutu rebel group before turning into a political organisation in 2003. The CNDD-FDD’s selection of Ndayishimiye, who had previously held various government positions as well as the post of party secretary-general, reveals much about where power truly lies in the party. At first, it appeared that Nkurunziza was pushing for his ally Pascal Nyabenda, the former president of the National Assembly, to succeed him. It was only after intense lobbying by top generals that Ndayishimiye, himself a former senior army officer, finally won the candidacy. Having risen to power largely at the behest of powerful party security chiefs to whom he now owes his presidency, he will be under pressure to ensure they remain happy with him.

Indeed, after securing electoral victory for the CNDD-FDD, which now holds a majority in both the National Assembly (86 0f 123 seats) and the Senate (34 of 39 seats), Ndayishimiye has appointed generals and security hardliners to top positions. His fifteen-member cabinet includes Prime Minister Alain-Guillaume Bunyoni and Interior Minister Gervais Ndirakobuca, who are both under EU and U.S. sanctions for their role in crackdowns during the 2015 crisis.

Even with a majority in parliament, repression remains a key tool for governing Burundi.

Even with a majority in parliament, repression remains a key tool for governing Burundi. According to Human Rights Watch and the UN Commission of Inquiry on Burundi, the Imbonerakure and the intelligence services continue to commit human rights violations, cracking down on civilians and opposition members, though to a lesser extent than prior to the elections. State institutions target for abuse specific groups such as members of the Congrès national pour la liberté (CNL) opposition party, young Tutsis and members of the army’s old guard, mainly Tutsi, whom the CNDD-FDD sees as a security threat. The government is also stepping up its efforts to track down and punish those involved in the 2015 failed coup.

What reforms has the new president been keen to push?

Despite government repression, Ndayishimiye is trying to go on a charm offensive with the media and some civil society groups. To demonstrate his bona fides, he has taken some modest positive steps to reverse past harms. To begin with, authorities have released four jailed journalists who work for Iwacu, one of Burundi’s few remaining independent media outlets, following a presidential pardon in December 2020. They had been detained since October 2019 while reporting on clashes between security forces and an armed group in Bubanza province. While the journalists’ release has moved these cases in the right direction, rights organisations say it is not enough, arguing that authorities have yet to reverse the unjust convictions in the courts.

The government has also opened up more media space. In January, authorities reopened negotiations with national and international media outlets. They cleared local radio station Bonesha FM for operations in February 2021 after forcing it to close in 2015, and did the same for the BBC, whose license was revoked in 2019, in June. In April, the government also lifted sanctions against Parcem, which was one of the last human rights advocacy groups operating in Burundi until its suspension in June 2019.

Ndayishimiye has meanwhile tried to demonstrate that he is serious about improving governance and tackling corruption, albeit with mixed results. When installing his new cabinet, he warned his ministers he could easily replace them if they failed to perform adequately and that he would not tolerate people “diverting a single cent from the budget planned to improve the well-being of Burundians”. He also gave members of his government three weeks to declare their assets to the public. He later backtracked, however, reportedly under CNDD-FDD pressure, stating that senior state officials and public officials will not be forced to comply. The arrest of Commerce Minister Immaculée Ndabaneze for alleged embezzlement in May was also short-lived, as she was quickly released.

After years of no progress at all, even modest reform efforts are welcome.

After years of no progress at all, even modest reform efforts are welcome, although diplomats differ on how meaningful the steps Ndayishimiye has taken will prove to be. While one diplomat told Crisis Group that this administration and its predecessor are like “night and day”, others suggested that anti-corruption measures could be “political window dressing” and thus far do not indicate a commitment to comprehensive reform. Similarly, these sceptics tend to play down the arrests and convictions of a small number of police officers and Imbonerakure on criminal charges given that security force and militia repression and rights abuses reportedly still continue, even if at lower levels.

The president has also come out with a national strategy to handle the COVID-19 outbreak, which Nkurunziza had stated would be neutralised by God. Right after assuming office, Ndayishimiye began a national campaign against the virus’s spread, establishing a committee to sensitise the population about what preventive measures they could take while the government stepped up a national testing campaign. The country has also normalised relations with the World Health Organization (WHO), after expelling its representatives in May 2020, allowing the resumption of aid. Nevertheless, Burundi asked not to be included on the list to receive vaccines under the COVAX initiative pending their final WHO certification, and the government has repeatedly said acquiring doses is not a priority due to their elevated cost.

On foreign policy, Ndayishimiye has taken steps to re-engage Burundi’s partners. The new president has been keen to deliver on electoral promises of repairing relations with the country’ neighbours and international donors. He is acutely aware that the country’s shattered economy could benefit from better trading relationships with regional partners and direct financial support from influential donors, such as the EU. Since assuming office, he has visited eight countries on the continent, starting with Burundi’s key regional ally Tanzania and including Egypt, Kenya and Uganda. Foreign Minister Albert Shingiro, Burundi's former representative to the UN and previously an apologist for Nkurunziza’s isolationist foreign policy, has been instructed by Ndayishimiye to lead Burundi’s diplomatic offensive outside the continent. He also conducted a European tour in April and May, visiting Brussels at the invitation of the EU, France and Switzerland.

How have international and regional partners reacted to these developments?

Ndayishimiye’s domestic policies and diplomacy have won him gains in the halls of multilateral organisations.

Ndayishimiye’s domestic policies and diplomacy have won him gains in the halls of multilateral organisations. The Organisation Internationale de la Francophonie accepted Burundi back as a full member in November 2020 after suspending it following the 2015 political crisis. In December, the UN Security Council officially removed the country from its agenda. In February, the East African Community heads of state chose Ndayishimiye as rapporteur for the 2021-2022 term and as next chairman for 2022-2023. Even more significant were the closure of the African Union Human Rights Observers and Military Experts Mission as well as the Office of the UN Secretary-General’s Special Envoy in May, both established to monitor the situation in the country and find a way to end the violence. The special envoy’s office closed at the Burundian authorities’ request, stating that “in light of the country's progress in terms of peace and security, only UN presence of socio-economic nature is needed to support Burundi in its development efforts”.

Influential donors, in particular the EU, are also striking a different tone toward Burundi. In December 2020, the EU ambassador in Bujumbura stated that “Ndayishimiye’s new policy of openness constitutes a solid basis for the resumption of good cooperation”. In June, after only six months of talks between the Burundian authorities and the EU, the latter announced it would be willing to revoke its measure suspending financial aid, if and when Bujumbura makes certain additional reforms. But diplomats tell Crisis Group that the EU also decided to change its approach because the suspension of direct budgetary support and the application of sanctions against Burundian officials during Nkurunziza’s rule had not led to an improvement of the country’s situation. In fact, their governments worried that these measures may have simply provoked the authorites to turn to other partners, such as China, Russia and Turkey, thereby diluting Western influence further.

Relations with Rwanda have also started to improve, with important implications for regional security. When in office, Nkurunziza had openly accused Kigali of supporting the Burundian rebel group RED-Tabara, active in the eastern Democratic Republic of Congo and reportedly led by a Tutsi opponent of the Hutu-dominated Burundian regime. Rwanda had denied this allegation and in contrast stated that Burundi was supporting the Forces démocratiques de libération du Rwanda (FDLR), a remnant of the Rwandan Hutu militia involved in the 1994 genocide, and also active in eastern Congo. The two presidents have yet to meet in person, but working-level meetings between government officials from the two countries are taking place. Greater cooperation between Rwandan and Burundian intelligence officials has also led to a de-escalation in tensions despite skirmishes involving armed groups on the border. Rwandan authorities have arrested at least nineteen RED-Tabara rebels, while Burundi’s government has promised to fight the FDLR.

Tensions persist, however, over Burundi’s request to hand over those responsible for the coup attempt in 2015 who found refuge in Rwanda. Kigali has so far refused but appeared sensitive to Bujumbura’s demands in March when three Burundian opposition radio stations operating from the Rwandan capital had to suspend their broadcasts.

What are the main risks and challenges moving forward?

A key challenge for partners and putative partners looking to see whether Burundi really is turning a corner is that international monitoring capacity has diminished and will continue to do so. After the closure of both the UN special envoy’s office and the African Union mission, the UN Commission of Inquiry is the only remaining internationally mandated body active in the country monitoring human rights abuses and the risk of further conflict. While briefing the UN Human Rights Council in March, the Commission stated that the situation is still “too complex and uncertain to be referred to as genuine improvement”. But despite the continued need for its analysis, its mandate will likely not be renewed in September. As a result, the responsibility to keep on top of the human rights and security situations in the country will be left in the hands of local organisations and donor country embassies, which may have reason to keep shining a light on the situation in the country.

As for risks, despite some signs that Ndayishimiye is trying to create a break from the damaging legacy of his predecessor, the CNDD-FDD has already signalled it is likely to monopolise power as hardliners from the party also entrench their bases. By appointing mainly Hutu politicians into government, Ndayishimiye has already disregarded provisions for proportional representation in the Arusha Agreement, which included power-sharing arrangements between Hutu and Tutsi political factions. In addition, the president tightened his grip on the legal system in January by approving the amendment to a law governing the Conseil supérieur de la magistrature, an institution officially mandated to guarantee the judiciary’s independence from the executive branch, but which in practice is headed by the president. The new law gives the president even more power, essentially by allowing him to do a quality check of all court judgments. An international monitor working on Burundi told Crisis Group that “everything is in place for full and total control” by the CNDD-FDD government.

Efforts by Ndayishimiye to push a reformist agenda that would dismantle the machinery of repression created by his predecessor may well meet resistance from the bowels of the ruling party, including those who were not necessarily in favour of his selection as the party candidate in 2020. Even those who did support him may not want to see him advance certain policies. Several generals, for example, are not in favour of rapprochement with the EU and any conditionality that may come with resumption of budgetary aid, having enriched themselves during Nkurunziza’s fifteen years in power. By the same token, a failure to reform may expose the country to an even more prolonged economic crisis and the political tensions that may go with it.