The current political climate in Senegal transcends mere personal disagreements, highlighting a core tension between the authority of established institutions and the popular appeal of a charismatic leader. This dynamic, a familiar concept in political science, often carries the risk of “hubris.”
Ousmane Sonko’s journey warrants close examination. His meteoric ascent was fueled by a desire for change unprecedented in recent Senegalese political history. He successfully tapped into the frustrations of a generation often overlooked, challenging a system perceived as opaque and advocating a political discourse centered on national sovereignty, dignity, and the people’s pivotal role.
Sonko had previously hinted at the possibility of “peaceful cohabitation” with the presidency. His recent election to lead the National Assembly, just days after his removal as Premier ministre, could be an opportunity to realize this vision. The sequence of events leading to his election unfolded with remarkable speed. On May 22, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye dismissed Sonko from his post. By May 23, Malick Ndiaye, then President of the National Assembly, resigned, strategically vacating the speaker’s chair. On May 25, Ahmadou Alhaminou Mohamed Lô was appointed as the new Premier ministre. Finally, on May 26, Ousmane Sonko was elected President of the National Assembly with overwhelming support—132 out of 165 deputies—solidifying his leadership within Pastef, the majority party he founded. This election, described by some as historic and by others as an “institutional coup,” positions the former Premier ministre as a primary opposition figure against his former ally, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, with whom he recently formed a complex dyarchy. Significant questions now arise: will Pastef, which voted unanimously for Sonko, endorse the new government led by the technocratic Premier ministre? The ruling party has articulated its demands, emphasizing “fidelity to the program that led to the 2024 victory,” a program largely crafted by Sonko himself. Sonko has sent mixed signals, alternating between calls for institutional appeasement and firm messages to the President. He notably warned that the National Assembly would “fully exercise its constitutional prerogatives” and expressed regret over Pastef’s lack of consultation regarding the new Premier ministre’s appointment. Amidst this political ferment, the nation’s sovereign rating was downgraded from “stable” to “negative.”
This political influence is undeniable and has profoundly reshaped the national stage. However, charismatic leadership carries an inherent ambivalence: while it unites crowds around a strong figure, it risks eroding the impersonal foundations that uphold institutional democracy.
Popular or constitutional legitimacy?
When supporters perceive an individual as the sole engine of the “revolution,” when the future of a collective endeavor appears tied to a single personality, and when the distinction between political loyalty and personal devotion blurs, that is precisely where the risk of hubris arises. This is not an individual failing but a structural phenomenon. The current crisis in Senegal illuminates this contradiction.
For several months, Senegal navigated a remarkable political uncertainty: where did the true locus of power reside? With the elected President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, or with Ousmane Sonko, the historical leader of Pastef—the African Patriots of Senegal for Work, Ethics, and Fraternity party, now in power? Was it the legitimacy bestowed by the ballot box or that derived from militant engagement? Constitutional authority or charisma? Such a duality was destined to fade. Every democracy demands, at some point, that institutions assert their preeminence. A state cannot endure with two symbolic centers of command. Ousmane Sonko’s power was not limited to his role as Premier ministre; it primarily stemmed from his ability to simultaneously embody the head of government, the leader of a movement, a militant figure, and the emotional expression of a significant segment of Senegalese youth.
It is precisely at this juncture that the risk of hubris manifests: when a leader aspires to encompass the state apparatus, popular will, and the momentum of the movement. The paradox is that this configuration does not necessarily threaten democracy through overt brutality. More insidiously, it can erode it by prompting institutions to recede in the face of a political personality’s symbolic aura. Senegalese political formations largely remain organized around emblematic figures. The Parliament still struggles to assert itself as an independent and effective counter-power. While institutions demonstrate a certain resilience, they remain vulnerable to the emotional impact of major political leaders.
“A test of truth”
The fundamental issue at hand is therefore not moral, but purely institutional. Will Ousmane Sonko be able to accept the preeminence of institutional legitimacy over charismatic legitimacy? Can he consent to the project he initiated no longer belonging to him exclusively? Is he prepared to evolve from a mere catalyst of historical protest into one actor among many within an institutional framework designed to endure beyond individuals?
This is undoubtedly the most arduous challenge for any leader who has embodied a major societal shift. African political history is rich with examples of movements that shone in opposition before confronting the complex realities of state governance. Leading requires different skills than those needed for mobilization. It demands compromises, sacrifices, respect for institutional hierarchies, and sometimes even a form of personal effacement for the benefit of state continuity. The true measure of a leader’s greatness is not limited to their ability to attain power. It is also revealed in their aptitude to accept the inherent constraints of institutional democracy. Senegal appears to be currently engaged in this test of truth.
The management of this tension will not only determine the future of the Pastef project but also a significant part of the nation’s democratic stability.