For several months now, in Dakar, a palpable truth permeated conversations across all segments of society, from bustling newsrooms and the hushed corridors of ministries to vibrant popular neighborhoods: the powerful alliance that propelled the Senegalese opposition to power was showing significant cracks. The campaign slogan, « Diomaye mooy Sonko, Sonko mooy Diomaye » (Diomaye is Sonko, and Sonko is Diomaye, in Wolof), had gradually lost its resonance. Over weeks, the once-impactful phrase morphed into a stark realization: « Diomaye n’est plus Sonko », as the two leaders seemed increasingly unconcerned with concealing their growing disagreements.
Indeed, between President Bassirou Diomaye Faye and his Prime Minister Ousmane Sonko, points of contention had escalated to such an extent that their cohabitation at the nation’s helm became nearly untenable. Differences in approach, power struggles, rivalries among their respective entourages, and a clear competition for true leadership in governance all pointed to an eventual parting of ways for one of the men.
By choosing to dismiss his Prime Minister, the Senegalese head of state undeniably sought to assert his authority. However, this decisive move may also carry significant political risks.
Ousmane Sonko’s calculated maneuver
For many months, Ousmane Sonko appeared to be systematically pushing his relationship with Bassirou Diomaye Faye towards a breaking point. The leader of Pastef understood that he could not sustainably coexist with a president progressively aiming to fully exercise his mandate. Yet, he also knew that in an open confrontation, the emotional and militant support within the party would likely remain firmly in his favor.
This was the true strategic dilemma: to compel Diomaye Faye to choose between his institutional authority and the political unity of the Pastef movement.
By remaining in government while simultaneously demonstrating significant political autonomy, Ousmane Sonko incrementally rendered the situation untenable. Each ambiguous public statement, every visible disagreement, and every implicit reminder of his status as the movement’s historical leader amplified the pressure on the head of state.
The Senegalese president found himself trapped in a no-win scenario. If he accepted this form of dual leadership, he risked appearing as a weakened president, unable to impose his authority. But by dismissing his Prime Minister, he risked being perceived as the one who shattered Pastef’s foundational pact and betrayed the original spirit of the movement in the eyes of a significant portion of its militants.
In essence, Ousmane Sonko had everything to gain by being removed from office. A forced departure now allows him to fully reclaim the role he never ceased to embody for a segment of the base: the historic leader, the political martyr, the central figure advocating for a break from the old system.
The allure of new advisors
Bassirou Diomaye Faye might have fallen into a second, equally perilous trap. Since his ascension to power, a new coterie has begun to orbit the president: political operators, former supporters of the Macky Sall regime, opportunistic notables, and professional political migrants. All now echo the same message: « You are the president. You must demonstrate who is in charge. »
This narrative naturally flatters presidential authority. After all, within Senegal’s institutional framework, it seems anomalous for a Prime Minister to project an image of being the political equal of the head of state. However, Bassirou Diomaye Faye would do well to scrutinize the true motivations of these newfound allies.
Where were these individuals when Ousmane Sonko and he faced the judicial machinery of the Macky Sall administration? Where were they during the imprisonments, the violently suppressed protests, and the smear campaigns against Pastef? Many were then quietly enjoying the privileges of the very system they now denounce with sudden, revolutionary fervor.
These masters of political opportunism excel at detecting fractures, amplifying rivalries, and fueling competing egos. Their political survival often hinges on dividing former comrades-in-arms. African political history abounds with similar examples: movements that carried great hope, came to power, and were subsequently weakened less by external opposition than by their own internal divisions.
The danger for Diomaye Faye is immense: to believe that those who encouraged him to break with Ousmane Sonko are genuinely working to consolidate his power. Many may primarily seek to weaken Pastef to neutralize the political project it represents.
The potential for Pastef’s division
An open power struggle has now begun, which could ultimately benefit Ousmane Sonko. The current political reality in Senegal remains undeniable: Pastef largely dominates the national scene, thanks to its exceptional grassroots presence, a mobilized youth base, and a powerful narrative forged during years of confrontation with the Macky Sall regime. Within this dynamic, Sonko remains the pivotal figure.
Even when hindered by the judiciary and absent from presidential ballots, it was around him that the hope for change crystallized. Bassirou Diomaye Faye’s election was perceived by a significant portion of the public as a victory by proxy for Ousmane Sonko.
Certainly, the president holds institutional legitimacy. However, his former Prime Minister retains formidable popular and militant legitimacy. In any future political or electoral confrontation, this factor could prove decisive.
Should Pastef fracture into an wing loyal to Diomaye Faye and another devoted to Ousmane Sonko, there is no guarantee that the head of state would emerge victorious. Many party officials, elected representatives, and activists might be tempted to follow the one they still consider the central figure of the movement. Bassirou Diomaye Faye does not yet possess an autonomous political apparatus sufficiently structured to counterbalance the influence of his former mentor. This represents his primary vulnerability.
The challenge of political succession
The inherent struggle for many political successors is their eventual desire to forge their own identity. It is a natural human inclination. No president can long accept appearing as a mere figurehead devoid of genuine authority.
Beyond the individuals involved, the very coherence of Pastef’s project is now being questioned. The movement was founded on a promise of radical change: virtuous governance, national sovereignty, social justice, and the restoration of national dignity. Yet, ego battles often possess a destructive capacity to divert political movements from their initial mission.
Perhaps the greatest irony in this unfolding drama is that Pastef’s adversaries may ultimately profit from a crisis they did not even need to instigate themselves.
