On 12 January, the cabinet reshuffle carried out in Burkina Faso under the leadership of Transitional President Captain Ibrahim Traoré can be interpreted not as a routine bureaucratic rotation, but rather as a redefinition of the state’s genetic code and governing philosophy in line with the harsh realities on the ground.[i] The decisions taken by the military authorities in the capital, Ouagadougou, have drawn attention less because of changes in individual officeholders than because of the profound transformations reflected in ministerial titles and institutional identities.
This move constitutes a concrete declaration of a new state rationality developed in response to the long-standing security crisis, territorial losses, and erosion of state authority across the Sahel belt. Through this revision, the Traoré administration is setting aside the normative expectations of the international community and transitioning toward an inward-looking “war state” architecture designed for extraordinary conditions and centered on national survival.
The most striking and symbolically charged change in the new cabinet structure is undoubtedly the renaming of the Ministry of Defense as the “Ministry of War and Patriotic Defense.”[ii] In the modern international order established after the Second World War, states have generally preferred to organize their military institutions around the terminology of “defense” rather than the more aggressive concept of “war.” However, the decision of the Burkina Faso authorities to officially incorporate the term “war” into a ministerial title in the twenty-first century can be interpreted not merely as a diplomatic signal, but as an honest acknowledgment of the realities on the ground.
In a context where a significant portion of national territory is under the control of non-state armed actors and terrorist groups, the notion of “defense” represents a passive reflex aimed at preserving the status quo. By contrast, through this conceptual shift, the Ouagadougou administration is transforming the state’s security doctrine from a psychology of mere “protection” into an offensive strategy focused on “reclaiming territory” and “eliminating the enemy.”
The inclusion of the term “war” indicates that the army and the security bureaucracy will no longer operate under peacetime rules, but rather according to the logic of extraordinary conditions, with all state resources being mobilized and directly channeled into the battlefield. This new designation also conveys a clear message to both the civilian population and the armed forces that the “state of emergency has become permanent.”
The addition of the phrase “Patriotic Defense” to the name of the ministry reflects the regime’s effort to consolidate its social base.[iii] The Traoré administration continues to pursue a strategy of moving the fight against terrorism beyond the exclusive domain of the professional army and diffusing it across society through civilian militia structures such as the “Volunteers for the Defense of the Homeland” (VDP).
This emphasis in the ministry’s name demonstrates that the arming of civilians and their integration into the security architecture has moved beyond a temporary measure and has become an institutionalized state policy. In this context, the state is no longer the sole monopoly provider of security; instead, it is transforming into an organism that wages war alongside its own population.
Another critical move in the cabinet reshuffle was the removal of the term “Human Rights” from the title of the Ministry of Justice.[iv] While Western-centered interpretations tend to view this step as a sign of authoritarian consolidation and the opening of the door to rights violations, from the perspective of Burkina Faso’s internal dynamics it represents a reordering of priorities. In a country where the security crisis has reached the level of an existential threat, the authorities increasingly perceive liberal legal norms and human rights discourse as factors that slow down counterterrorism operations and constrain the state’s capacity to act decisively.
The removal of the “Human Rights” designation reflects the regime’s intent to transform the judicial apparatus from a supervisory mechanism designed to protect individual freedoms into an instrument that consolidates state sovereignty and punishes elements accused of “treason.” This shift indicates that Burkina Faso is breaking away from Western-origin legal and governance standards and moving toward a harsher and more pragmatic legal order tailored to its own local realities.
The changes introduced to the civilian face of the state convey messages that are at least as radical as those affecting the military sphere. The merger of the ministries responsible for infrastructure and urban planning under the title “Ministry of the Construction of the Nation” represents not a technical reorganization but an ideological choice. In this context, the concept of “construction” signifies more than physical development activities; it denotes the reestablishment of national consciousness and the restoration of state authority.
Similarly, the renaming of the Ministry of Public Service as the “Ministry of the Servants of the People” constitutes an explicit reference to the revolutionary spirit of the Thomas Sankara era. Traoré aims to dismantle the bureaucracy’s top-down, elitist, and cumbersome structure inherited from the colonial period, redefining the civil servant not merely as an “administrator” but as a “rank-and-file cadre” serving the revolution and the people. This form of semantic engineering reflects the regime’s effort to derive its legitimacy not from electoral or constitutional processes, but from the direct and populist bond it seeks to establish with the populace.
When the timing and rationale of the cabinet reshuffle are examined, it becomes evident that the administration has adopted a performance-oriented and populist approach. The dismissal of the Minister of Sports, Youth, and Employment, Roland Somda, on the grounds of the national team’s early elimination from the Africa Cup of Nations (AFCON 2025) held in Morocco, constitutes the most concrete example of this approach. Given football’s unifying role in African societies and its capacity to alleviate social tensions, the imposition of a political cost for failure on the field demonstrates how closely the Traoré administration monitors public sentiment and societal sensitivities.
The minister’s dismissal conveys a clear message that any failure undermining public morale or harming national pride will not be tolerated, even if it does not occur in the fields of security or the economy. This reveals that the military administration feels compelled to ground its legitimacy in a continuous narrative of success and sustained public approval.
From a foreign policy perspective, this new cabinet architecture institutionalizes Burkina Faso’s rupture with its traditional Western allies—particularly France—and its strategic pivot toward Russia. Traoré’s engagements in St. Petersburg and the expanding military cooperation with Moscow underscore the growing importance of Russian logistical and political support in operationalizing aggressive doctrines such as the “Ministry of War.”
Rather than Western assistance conditioned on “human rights” and a “return to democracy,” Russia’s pragmatic support—“results-oriented” and prioritizing regime survival—aligns closely with the new state logic emerging in Ouagadougou. Consequently, the 12 January reshuffle represents Burkina Faso’s determination to secure its sovereignty not through Western-endorsed democratic prescriptions, but through strategic partnerships with the Eastern bloc and the maximization of hard-power instruments grounded in its own military capacity.
In conclusion, it is highly unlikely that the developments unfolding in Burkina Faso can be regarded as the routine administrative measures of a “temporary military government.” Captain Ibrahim Traoré is restructuring the state apparatus not according to “normal conditions,” but in line with the imperatives of “permanent war” and “revolution.” Concepts such as “War,” “Construction of the Fatherland,” and “Servants of the People” have been removed from the technical language of bureaucracy and transformed into instruments of political mobilization. Through this new institutional identity, the Ouagadougou administration rejects the methods imposed by the international community in the fight against terrorism and advances the claim of producing “African solutions to Africa’s problems.”
While it remains uncertain whether this radical transformation will succeed in delivering security on the ground, it is clear that the character of the Burkinabè state has changed irreversibly and that a new, “securitized” model of statehood is beginning to take root in the Sahel. The structure being built by Traoré carries the potential to serve as a prototype for other military administrations across the region.
[i] “Au Burkina Faso, avec les ministères de la guerre, des serviteurs du peuple et de la construction de la patrie, Ibrahim Traoré poursuit sa ‘révolution’” [“In Burkina Faso, with ministries of war, servants of the people, and the construction of the homeland, Ibrahim Traoré continues his ‘revolution’”], Le Monde, 12 January 2026, https://shorturl.at/K2ouC, (Accessed: 13.01.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
