Systematic review reveals how authoritarian regimes suppress tourism development across Sub-Saharan Africa, suggesting democratic reforms and community-based models as vital solutions.
This study examines the interplay of dictatorship, tyranny, and tourism in selected African nations—Burkina Faso, Niger, Gabon, Cameroon, Equatorial Guinea, Uganda, Eritrea, Republic of the Congo, Rwanda, Kenya, Mali, Chad and Nigeria—highlighting how authoritarian governance stifles tourism potential while exploring strategies to foster sustainable development. Drawing on a systematic literature review and case studies, the research identifies key tourism assets, including Burkina Faso's Ruins of Loropéni, Rwanda's gorilla trekking, and Gabon's eco-tourism parks, which could generate significant revenue ($50 million–$2 billion annually) if authoritarian barriers are addressed. Authoritarian regimes, marked by prolonged leadership (e.g., Cameroon's Paul Biya since 1982) and recent coups (e.g., Niger 2023), limit tourism through insecurity, restricted access, controlled narratives, and elite capture, as evidenced by Eritrea's negligible tourism and Burkina Faso's visitor decline from 150,000 in 2015 and 50,000 in 2023. Mitigation measures include strengthening democratic institutions, promoting civil society advocacy, imposing regional sanctions, empowering youth via digital platforms, resolving conflicts, and adopting community-based tourism models, drawing on successful cases like Botswana and Namibia. This literature review critically examines the multifaceted effects of conflict on tourism within the Sub-Saharan Africa, drawing upon academic research and incorporating relevant case studies to illustrate the devastating consequences and the arduous path to recovery. It argues that conflict invariably leads to a significant decline in tourist arrivals, revenue, and infrastructure development, while also necessitating innovative resilience strategies and a profound understanding of destination image management.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Immy et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: