The current political landscape in Senegal transcends a mere disagreement between two influential figures. It represents a fundamental clash between two distinct forms of legitimacy: institutional authority and charismatic appeal. This inherent tension, a recurring theme in contemporary political history, frequently gives rise to a phenomenon political theorists refer to as hubris.
From this perspective, the trajectory of Ousmane Sonko warrants a clear-eyed and impartial examination. Sonko’s ascent in Senegalese politics was fueled by an unprecedented surge of disruptive energy, rarely witnessed in the nation’s recent past. He skillfully channeled the frustration of a marginalized youth, challenged a political establishment widely perceived as entrenched, and introduced a fresh political discourse centered on national sovereignty, dignity, and the empowerment of the people as key stakeholders.
Ousmane Sonko had previously articulated a concept of “smooth cohabitation” with the presidential palace. His subsequent election to lead the National Assembly, occurring just days after his dismissal as Prime Minister, presented him with an opportunity to put this theory into practice.
The sequence of political events leading to his election unfolded with remarkable speed. On May 22, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye removed Ousmane Sonko from his position as Prime Minister. The very next day, May 23, Malick Ndiaye, the then-President of the National Assembly, strategically tendered his resignation, vacating the leadership post. By May 25, Ahmadou Alhaminou Mohamed Lô was appointed as the new Prime Minister. Then, on May 26, Ousmane Sonko was overwhelmingly elected President of the National Assembly, a clear indication that he remains the undisputed leader of Pastef, the majority party he founded. Out of 165 deputies, the Pastef leader secured a commanding 132 votes.
While some observers lauded this election as “historic,” others labeled it an “institutional coup.” Regardless of interpretation, this development positions the former Prime Minister as the primary opposition figure to his erstwhile ally, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, with whom he had recently shared a tumultuous power dynamic.
Several critical questions now emerge. Will Pastef, which voted unanimously to elect Sonko to the helm of the National Assembly, agree to support—or even join—the new government that the highly technocratic new Prime Minister is tasked with forming?
The presidential party has reportedly outlined its conditions for participation, emphasizing “fidelity to the program that led to the 2024 victory.” This refers, implicitly, to the agenda crafted by Ousmane Sonko himself.
Sonko has sent mixed signals: while appearing to advocate for institutional appeasement, he also delivered a clear message to his former presidential ally. The National Assembly, he cautioned, will exercise “its constitutional prerogatives to the fullest.” He also expressed regret that Pastef was not consulted regarding the new Prime Minister’s appointment.
Amidst this institutional upheaval, the country’s sovereign rating has shifted from “stable” to “negative.”
This political force is undeniable and has profoundly reshaped the national landscape. However, every charismatic leadership inherently carries a contradiction: while it galvanizes support through a powerful figurehead, it can simultaneously weaken the impersonal mechanisms that underpin institutional democracy.
Popular or constitutional legitimacy?
When activists begin to perceive a single individual as the sole architect of the “revolution,” when the destiny of a collective endeavor appears to rest on one figure, and when the line blurs between political loyalty and personal allegiance, the risk of hubris emerges. This is not merely an individual failing but a structural phenomenon. The current crisis precisely illuminates this inherent contradiction.
For months, Senegal operated under a peculiar political ambiguity: who truly held the reins of power? Was it the elected President Faye, or the historical leader of the Pastef project, Sonko, who founded the Patriots of Senegal for Work, Ethics and Fraternity (Pastef) party, now in power? Was it the legitimacy derived from the ballot box or the legitimacy born of militant fervor? Constitutional authority or charismatic authority?
Such a dual power structure was unlikely to endure indefinitely. In any democracy, there comes a point when institutions assert their primacy. A state cannot function sustainably with two symbolic centers of command. Crucially, Sonko’s influence extended far beyond his role as Prime Minister. It stemmed primarily from his unique ability to simultaneously embody a head of government, a movement leader, a militant reference point, and the emotional embodiment of a significant segment of Senegalese youth.
This is precisely where the hubristic risk manifests: when a leader tends to occupy the space of the state, the people, and the movement all at once. The paradox is that this situation does not necessarily threaten democracy through overt brutality. Instead, it can subtly undermine it by compelling institutions to recede before the symbolic weight of a political personality.
Political parties in Senegal largely remain structured around central figures. The Parliament continues to struggle in establishing itself as a truly autonomous counter-power. Institutions, while resilient, remain vulnerable to the emotional potency of dominant political personalities.
“A moment of truth”
Therefore, the crucial question today is not a moral one; it is institutional. Can Ousmane Sonko accept that institutional legitimacy must now take precedence over charismatic legitimacy? Can he accept that the project he helped bring to fruition will gradually cease to be exclusively his own? Can he transition from being solely the driving force of a historic protest movement to becoming one actor among many within an institutional order designed to endure beyond individual leaders?
This is arguably the most formidable challenge for all great transformative leaders. African political history is replete with movements that triumphed in opposition only to confront the more complex demands of state governance. Governing requires different skills than mobilizing. It necessitates compromises, concessions, adherence to institutional hierarchies, and at times, even the acceptance of a degree of personal effacement for the sake of state continuity.
The true measure of a leader’s greatness is not solely in their ability to seize power. It is also in their capacity to accept the limits imposed by institutional democracy. Senegal may well be entering this decisive moment of truth.
The manner in which this tension is managed will determine not only the future of the Pastef project but also a significant portion of the nation’s democratic stability.
Seneplus (Dakar) 
