Convergence on Whose Terms? Reacting to Coups d'État in Guinea and Madagascar

Abstract

Over the past decade, numerous international actors have developed policy frameworks to address and ultimately prevent the resurgence of coups d'état in Africa. By reconstructing international reactions to the coups in Guinea and Madagascar, this article analyzes whether this trend has also engendered a convergence in practice. This, it argues, involves a struggle over defining the terms of such interventions, first with regard to how to re-build legitimate political orders and second in relation to the definition of roles and hierarchies that emanate from multiple and sometimes conflicting mandates to address such situations. Furthermore, while convergence is understood as generally ambiguous in its consequences, this article suggests that even successful convergence in practice comes with fundamental costs that can compromise the preventive aims of such interventions.