Introduction

Since 2010, African countries have been plagued by growing insecurity due to terrorist attacks. Particularly in the Sahel, countries such as Mali and Burkina Faso, with their fragile democracies, have been severely tested. This situation poses a dilemma for these countries: security first, before democracy, or vice versa. For some, the choice is clear: security must come first, before democracy. But does security really take precedence over democracy? Shouldn’t democracy be introduced to restore security?

The security issue

A state (from the Latin stare, standing upright, stable) is characterized by the peace that reigns within it. Its mission is to ensure the peace and security of its members through the use of public force. However, current data on the situation in the Sahel are more than alarming, despite recent progress (thousands of deaths, including soldiers and army auxiliaries, civilians leading to internal displacement). Insecurity is therefore a threat to the very survival of the State. Because there is no democracy in war, it’s easy to understand why some states mobilize every possible means to guarantee the integrity of their national territory. And this often means restricting citizens’ rights and freedoms.

Democracy is required for long-term peace.

While any state requires peace, peace at any cost is undesirable. Building peace on the ruins of democracy would also be suicidal, as it would be a “shortcut” to frustration and radicalization. We are not discussing formal democracy here, but rather democracy that leads to political action. As a result, regardless of the size of the majority, the values of freedom and equality, which are dear to democracy, forbid any violation of the fundamental rights of a few citizens for the sake of the well-being of others. Because every citizen has the right to life, no violation of a citizen’s fundamental rights, even in the name of security, can be justified. In this sense, the quest for security in the State must take democracy into account if it is to be just. In other words, only the law can define the limits of the use of public force.

Conclusion

To summarize, democracy and security are not mutually exclusive: combating terrorism through non-democratic or even anti-democratic means sows the seeds of hatred, which will feed terrorism. To break the cycle of terrorism, we must fight it democratically. Obviously, this method is slow and time-consuming, but it is also safer. So, no shortcuts in life or politics!