For several months now, a palpable truth has resonated across Dakar – from hushed ministerial antechambers to bustling popular neighborhoods and newsrooms: the powerful alliance that propelled the Senegalese opposition to power was beginning to fray. The once-dominant campaign slogan, « Diomaye mooy Sonko, Sonko mooy Diomaye » (Diomaye is Sonko and Sonko is Diomaye, in Wolof), gradually lost its potency. Over the weeks, the catchy phrase that had captivated the nation morphed into a new understanding: « 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 multiplied, making their cohabitation at the pinnacle of the state almost untenable. Differences in methodology, power struggles, rivalries among their respective entourages, and a clear competition for true leadership in the exercise of power – all signs pointed to an inevitable outcome where one of the two men would have to yield.
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 risks.
Ousmane Sonko’s calculated maneuver
For many months, Ousmane Sonko appeared to be methodically pushing his relationship with Bassirou Diomaye Faye to 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 allegiance within the party would likely remain in his favor.
This was the true trap: compelling Diomaye Faye to choose between his institutional authority and the political unity of Pastef.
By remaining in government while simultaneously demonstrating political autonomy, Ousmane Sonko steadily made the situation untenable. Each ambiguous statement, every public divergence, 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 caught 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 if he dismissed his Prime Minister, he risked being perceived as the one who broke Pastef’s founding pact and, in the eyes of a segment of activists, betrayed the movement’s original spirit.
In essence, Ousmane Sonko had everything to gain by being sidelined. A forced departure now allows him to fully reclaim the role he never ceased to embody for a portion of the base: the historical leader, the political martyr, the central figure of the break from the old system.
The allure of new advisors
Bassirou Diomaye Faye may have inadvertently fallen into a second trap. Since his ascension to power, a new cohort has gravitated around the president: political operators, former supporters of the Macky Sall regime, opportunistic notables, and professional turncoats. All now echo the same refrain: “You are the President. You must show who is in charge.”
This discourse naturally flatters presidential authority. After all, within Senegal’s institutional framework, it seems incongruous for a Prime Minister to project himself as the political equal of the head of state. However, Bassirou Diomaye Faye would do well to question the true motivations of these newfound allies.
Where were they when Ousmane Sonko and he confronted the judicial machinery of the Macky Sall regime? Where were they during the imprisonments, the violently suppressed demonstrations, and the campaigns to demonize 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 feeding competing egos. Their political survival often hinges on dividing former comrades-in-arms. African political history abounds with similar examples: hopeful movements that gain power only to be weakened less by 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 genuinely work towards consolidating his power. Many may primarily seek to weaken Pastef to neutralize the political project it represents.
The risk of a Pastef fracture
The test of strength is now openly engaged. It could ultimately benefit Ousmane Sonko. The current political reality in Senegal remains undeniable: Pastef largely dominates the national scene thanks to exceptional grassroots mobilization, a young and engaged base, and a powerful narrative forged during years of confrontation with the Macky Sall regime. Within this dynamic, Sonko remains the central figure.
Even when hindered by legal challenges and absent from the presidential ballot, 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. But his former Prime Minister retains formidable popular and militant legitimacy. In any future political or electoral confrontation, this factor could prove decisive.
If Pastef were to fracture into an wing loyal to Diomaye Faye and another aligned with 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 movement’s central figure. Bassirou Diomaye Faye does not yet possess an autonomous political apparatus sufficiently structured to counterbalance the influence of his former mentor. This constitutes his primary vulnerability.
The challenge of political heirs
The plight of many political heirs is that they inevitably seek to establish their own identity. It is a human trait. No president can long accept appearing as a mere figurehead devoid of authority.
Beyond the individuals, it is now the very coherence of the project championed by Pastef that is being questioned. The movement was born from a promise of radical change: virtuous governance, national sovereignty, social justice, and the restoration of national dignity. However, ego battles often possess the destructive capacity to divert political movements from their initial mission.
Perhaps the greatest irony in this affair is that Pastef’s adversaries might ultimately benefit from a crisis they did not even need to provoke themselves.
