The current political landscape in Senegal transcends a mere disagreement between two prominent figures; it represents a fundamental clash between two forms of legitimacy: institutional and charismatic. This inherent tension, a recurring theme in contemporary political history, frequently gives rise to a phenomenon political theorists term ‘hubris’.

From this perspective, Ousmane Sonko’s political journey warrants a clear-eyed and dispassionate examination. Sonko’s ascent was fueled by a disruptive energy seldom witnessed in Senegal’s recent past. He skillfully channeled the frustrations of a marginalized youth, challenged a political system widely perceived as entrenched, and introduced a new political discourse centered on sovereignty, dignity, and the re-empowerment of the populace as central actors.

Sonko emerges as Faye’s main political rival

Sonko had previously advocated for a ‘soft cohabitation’ with the presidential palace. His recent election as President of the National Assembly, just days after his dismissal as Prime Minister, presents an opportunity to implement this vision.

The political sequence culminating in his election unfolded with unprecedented speed. On May 22, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye removed Ousmane Sonko from his position as Prime Minister. The following day, May 23, Malick Ndiaye, then President of the National Assembly, strategically resigned, vacating the leadership post. By May 25, Ahmadou Alhaminou Mohamed Lô was appointed as the new Prime Minister. Finally, on May 26, Ousmane Sonko was overwhelmingly elected President of the National Assembly, securing 132 votes out of 165 deputies. This victory underscores his enduring leadership of Pastef, the majority party he founded.

While some describe this election as ‘historic’, others have labeled it an ‘institutional coup d’état’. Regardless of interpretation, it positions the former Prime Minister as the primary political rival to his erstwhile ally, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, with whom he previously shared a tumultuous dyarchy.

Several critical questions now emerge. Will Pastef, which voted unanimously to elect Sonko to lead the National Assembly, agree to support – or even join – the new government to be formed by the highly technocratic new Prime Minister? The presidential party has reportedly outlined its conditions, including ‘fidelity to the program that led to the 2024 victory’, essentially referring to the agenda crafted by Ousmane Sonko.

Sonko himself 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 turbulence, the country’s sovereign rating has shifted from ‘stable’ to ‘negative’, a development closely watched by observers of African economy news.

This political force is undeniable, having profoundly reshaped the national landscape of Senegal. However, all charismatic leadership inherently carries a contradiction: while it mobilizes through a powerful embodiment, it can also inadvertently weaken the impersonal mechanisms that underpin institutional democracy.

Popular or constitutional legitimacy in Senegal?

When supporters begin to perceive one individual as the sole architect of a ‘revolution’, when the trajectory of a collective project appears to hinge on a single figure, and when the line between political and personal loyalty blurs, the risk of hubris emerges. This is not merely an individual failing but a structural phenomenon. The current political crisis in Senegal appears to reveal precisely this contradiction.

For months, Senegal navigated a unique political ambiguity: who truly held the reins of power? Was it the elected President, Bassirou Diomaye Faye, or the historical leader of the Pastef project, Ousmane Sonko, who founded the African 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 support? Constitutional authority or charismatic authority?

This duality was unlikely to endure indefinitely. In any functioning democracy, there comes a point when institutions assert their primacy. A state cannot sustainably operate with two symbolic centers of command. Sonko’s influence, however, extended beyond his former role as Prime Minister. It stemmed significantly from his ability to simultaneously act as head of government, movement leader, militant touchstone, and emotional embodiment for a substantial segment of Senegalese youth.

It is precisely here that the hubristic risk arises: when a leader tends to occupy the spaces of the state, the people, and the movement all at once. The paradox lies in the fact that this situation does not necessarily threaten democracy through overt brutality. Instead, it can weaken it more subtly, by compelling institutions to recede before the symbolic weight of a powerful political personality.

Political parties in Senegal largely remain structured around central figures. The Parliament still struggles to establish itself as a truly autonomous counter-power. Institutions, while resilient, remain vulnerable to the emotional potency of prominent political figures.

Senegal’s ‘test of truth’

This is why the crucial question today is not a moral one, but an institutional one. 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 progressively cease to be exclusively his own? Can he transition from being solely the engine of a historic protest to becoming one actor among many within an institutional order designed to endure beyond individuals?

This is arguably the most formidable challenge for all great leaders of disruption. African politics English 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, relinquishments, 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 extends beyond their capacity to seize power. It also encompasses their ability to accept the limits imposed by institutional democracy. Senegal may well be entering this ‘test of truth’ today.

How this tension is managed will determine not only the future of the Pastef project but also a significant portion of Senegal’s democratic stability, a key focus for pan-African journalism and Africa news observers.