The current political climate in Senegal transcends mere disagreements between two prominent figures. It unveils a fundamental tension between the established legitimacy of state institutions and the powerful influence wielded by a charismatic leader. This dynamic, frequently observed in political science, can sometimes lead to a phenomenon known as hubris.

Ousmane Sonko’s journey warrants an objective examination. His meteoric rise was built upon a desire for unprecedented systemic change in Senegal’s recent political history. He effectively harnessed the frustrations of a youth often overlooked, questioning a system perceived as opaque and introducing a political discourse centered on national sovereignty, dignity, and the pivotal role of the populace.

In the past, Ousmane Sonko had hinted at the possibility of a “peaceful cohabitation” with the presidency. His recent election as President of the National Assembly, occurring just days after his dismissal as Prime Minister, could present 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 relieved Ousmane Sonko of his duties. By May 23, Malick Ndiaye, then President of the National Assembly, strategically tendered his resignation, vacating the speaker’s chair. On May 25, Ahmadou Alhaminou Mohamed Lô was named the new Prime Minister. Finally, on May 26, Ousmane Sonko was elected President of the National Assembly with overwhelming support, garnering 132 votes out of 165 deputies. This outcome solidified his leadership within Pastef, the majority party he founded. This election, lauded as historic by some and branded an “institutional coup d’état” by others, positions the former Prime Minister as the 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, having unanimously voted for Sonko, endorse the new government formed by the Prime Minister, a technocrat? The ruling party has articulated its demands, emphasizing “fidelity to the program that led to the 2024 victory,” a platform largely crafted by Ousmane Sonko. Sonko himself has alternated between signals of institutional appeasement and firm messages directed at the President. He notably cautioned that the National Assembly would fully exercise “its constitutional prerogatives” and expressed regret over Pastef’s lack of consultation regarding the new Prime Minister’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 landscape. However, charismatic leadership holds an inherent ambivalence: while it unites masses around a strong figure, it sometimes risks eroding the impersonal foundations that underpin institutional democracy.

Popular or constitutional legitimacy?

When supporters perceive an individual as the sole driving force of a “revolution,” when the future of a collective initiative appears tied to a single personality, and when the distinction between political loyalty and personal attachment blur, that is precisely where the risk of hubris emerges. This isn’t an individual failing, but rather a structural phenomenon. The current crisis in Senegal illuminates this inherent contradiction.

For several months, Senegal navigated remarkable political uncertainty: where did the true locus of power reside? With the elected President Bassirou Diomaye Faye, or with Ousmane Sonko, the historic leader of Pastef (the African Patriots of Senegal for Work, Ethics and Fraternity), now in power? Was it the legitimacy conferred by the ballot box or that stemming from militant engagement? Constitutional authority or charisma? Such a duality was destined to dissipate. Any democracy eventually requires its institutions to assert their preeminence. A state cannot endure with two symbolic centers of command. Ousmane Sonko’s power was not confined to his role as Prime Minister; it primarily stemmed from his capacity to simultaneously embody the head of government, the leader of a movement, a militant figure, and the emotional voice 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 democracy by encouraging institutions to recede in the face of a political personality’s symbolic aura.

Senegalese political formations largely remain organized around emblematic figures. The Parliament continues to struggle to assert itself as an independent and effective counter-power. While institutions demonstrate a certain resilience, they nonetheless remain vulnerable to the emotional impact of major political leaders.

A “test of truth” for Senegal

The fundamental issue at hand is therefore not a moral one, 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 contestation into one actor among many within an institutional framework designed to endure beyond individuals?

This is undoubtedly the most challenging ordeal for any leader who has embodied a major rupture. African political history is rich with examples of movements that shone in opposition only to confront the complex realities of state governance. Leading demands different skills than those required for mobilization. It necessitates compromise, sacrifice, respect for institutional hierarchies, and sometimes even a form of personal effacement for the benefit of state longevity.

The true measure of a leader’s greatness is not limited to their ability to gain power. It is also revealed in their aptitude to accept the inherent constraints of institutional democracy. Senegal today appears to be engaged in this profound test of truth.

The management of this inherent tension will determine not only the future of the Pastef project but also a significant portion of the nation’s democratic stability.