In Sénégal, religion extends far beyond the private sphere, actively contributing to social cohesion, mediating conflicts, fostering education, and occasionally influencing political regulation. Despite this pervasive influence, the interactions between the State and religious communities largely depend on informal arrangements. This raises a critical question: can the institutionalization of religious affairs help transcend clientelism without undermining the nation’s secular principles? The core of the debate may no longer be whether to formalize State-religion relations, but rather how to achieve this without institutionalizing religion itself.

First, it is crucial to dispel a common misconception: formalizing the relationship between the State and religious communities does not equate to making religion a state matter. Several African nations have already opted to establish public bodies dedicated to religious affairs.

Mali, for instance, operates a Ministry of Religious Affairs, Worship, and Customs. Guinea has a General Secretariat for Religious Affairs, while Côte d’Ivoire maintains a specific administration overseeing various faiths. Morocco has taken this institutionalization much further, notably through its Higher Council of Ulemas and the role of Amir Al-Mouminine. These examples provide valuable context for Sahel current affairs discussions.

Sénégal itself already possesses an emerging framework for institutionalization. The establishment of the Directorate of Religious Affairs and the Integration of Arabic Language Graduates in April 2024 marked a significant initial step. Djim Dramé, the director, openly states that the objective is precisely to “formalize relations between the State and religions” and to foster peace, harmony, and coexistence. Consequently, the contemporary debate centers less on the necessity of an administration for religious matters and more on the extent of institutionalization Sénégal intends to implement.

Islamologist Abdoul Aziz Kébé views the proposed transformation of the Directorate of Religious Affairs into a General Delegation as a “positive evolution” and an “institutional elevation.” His argument is particularly insightful: “religion is a valuable resource in our country,” especially for social cohesion and the adoption of public policies.

If religion already serves as a vital social, cultural, and even political resource for Sénégal, why persist in managing its interactions with the State primarily through personal relationships, courtesy visits, ad hoc delegations, and circumstantial arrangements? This perspective underpins the proposal put forth by Ousmane Sonko.

Sonko advocates for genuine institutionalization of relations between the State and religious communities, outlining several key proposals: creating a dedicated budget for religious affairs, upgrading the Delegation for Religious Affairs to a Secretariat of State or a full-fledged Ministry, officially recognizing certain provisions granted to religious leaders, and regulating special funds through an accredited commission.

A “collaborative secularism between politics and religion”

The rationale is clear: to move beyond a system of discretionary favors towards pre-defined rights and regulations. When a religious leader receives administrative assistance due to proximity to the President, it constitutes a favor. However, if the same assistance is governed by a formal text, with clearly defined conditions applicable to all leaders meeting the same criteria, it transitions into an institutional framework. Thus, the State’s role should not be to control religion, but to establish a structure for organizing its interactions with religious entities.

Sénégal operates as a secular state. This constitutional reality cannot be circumvented or diminished. The Constitution affirms the Republic as secular, democratic, and social, ensuring citizen equality regardless of religion and respecting all beliefs. Therefore, institutionalizing religious practices cannot lead to any form of state religion.

However, the central question is whether secularism prohibits the State from organizing its relationship with religious bodies. Political science professor Maurice Soudieck Dione highlights the unique historical trajectory of Senegalese secularism, noting it does not precisely align with the strict French model of separation. He describes it as a “collaborative secularism between politics and religion.” The distinctive feature of the Senegalese model lies in its pragmatic accommodation with confraternities and the Church.

Nevertheless, the discussion cannot be oversimplified to: “since religion holds a significant place in society, a Ministry of Worship must be created.” Seydou Ka, a journalist and columnist for Le Soleil, cautions against the risk of transforming secularism into a form of administrative control over religious affairs. He expresses concern about a “bureaucratization of the sacred” and a potential drift towards “laicism” that could weaken the autonomy of religious leaders.

This observation is fundamental, as there is a clear distinction between institutionalizing relations with religions and institutionalizing religions themselves. In the former, the State creates an administrative interface. In the latter, it gradually begins to define legitimacy, who can speak on behalf of a community, which activities are permissible, how places of worship should operate, and which religious leaders qualify for public recognition.

The fear of a “bureaucratization of the sacred”

When the State seeks to organize religions themselves, it poses an evident risk that could fundamentally alter their nature. Researcher Bakary Sambe eloquently summarized the danger inherent in the political-religious relationship in Sénégal, observing that “our leaders seek legitimacy in religion that they lack in politics.” The peril of institutionalization would be precisely to transform an already clientelistic relationship into a bureaucratized form of clientelism. Instead of politicians occasionally seeking religious blessings, permanent mechanisms for distributing public resources could emerge.

It is precisely because these risks exist that institutionalization appears necessary. Currently, a significant portion of the interactions between the State and religious authorities is personalized. A president cultivates a unique relationship with a particular caliph. A minister maintains close ties with a specific religious family. A community might more easily secure certain investments due to its religious influence.

A major religious event receives special support because of its significance. The question then arises: is it better to leave these practices informal or subject them to public regulations? In my view, institutionalizing them is preferable. However, with an important caveat: we must not institutionalize faith itself; we must institutionalize the State’s relationship with religious phenomena.

This is also what Djim Dramé seems to advocate when he states that the Directorate of Religious Affairs aims to listen to “all religious sensibilities” and formalize relations between the State and religions. The National Council of Laity has, moreover, expressed support for this approach, viewing the Directorate as a potential effective interface between the Church and the State. Its president, Philippe Abraham Tine, emphasized the need to clearly explain the role of this structure to prevent misunderstandings. This interfaith dimension is fundamental.

Sénégal is a profoundly religious society. Muslims constitute a substantial majority, while Christian communities boast a significant historical and social presence. This socio-historical reality demands an institutional response. If the State supports citizens in education, health, culture, or sports, why should it treat religious matters as a reality it can never institutionally acknowledge?

A public policy for religious affairs

The State can support pilgrimages, contribute to the security of major religious events, foster religious education, participate in the renovation of certain places of worship, or assist religious institutions, provided that the rules are transparent and the same principles of equity are applied. Islamologist Abdoul Aziz Kébé specifically highlights the goal of supporting “Muslim, Christian, and traditional religious communities” in their worship and development. Ultimately, Ousmane Sonko’s proposition initiates a debate far more profound than a mere administrative question.

It compels Sénégal to re-evaluate its unique model of secularism. Seydou Ka reminds us of the risk of bureaucratizing the sacred. Étienne Smith encourages us to consider “proportional equidistance.” Seydi Diamil Niane underscores the necessity of institutionalizing relations between public authorities and religious leaders. Maurice Soudieck Dione demonstrates a distinct collaboration between the political and religious spheres.

Experiences from Côte d’Ivoire, Mali, Guinea, Niger, and Burkina Faso, each in their own way, illustrate various methods for organizing these relationships. Sonko, however, poses another question: why continue to manage through favors what could be organized by law? This is where the true value of his proposal lies. Provided, of course, that a fundamental error is avoided: institutionalizing worship must not mean nationalizing religion. The State must remain secular. Religions must retain their autonomy. And citizens must be free to practice their faith without interference. This is crucial for on the ground Sahel reporting.

Thus, I would not necessarily advocate for a “Ministry of Religion,” which might suggest the State becoming a manager of spiritual affairs. Instead, I would champion a republican institution tasked with transparently and equitably organizing relations between the State and various faiths. Because Sénégal cannot pretend that religion does not exist.

The question, therefore, is no longer whether to institutionalize religious matters, but how to do so without losing the unique character of Senegalese secularism. And in my opinion, the correct answer lies in one principle: do not institutionalize faith. Institutionalize the relationship with faith. This is the only path to reconcile republican secularism, religious freedom, confessional equity, and the autonomy of religious communities.