On 22 May 2026, President Bassirou Diomaye Faye brought an end to a rather unprecedented form of cohabitation, the first situation of its kind in Senegal’s political history.

In essence, the Senegalese people had brought a “Diomaye–Sonko” ticket to power.

It is therefore appropriate to ask two simple questions:

Is the victory of this ticket compatible with maintaining a constitution — a strong presidential system largely inspired by that of the current Fifth Republic in France? This top-down model of political management is in crisis across the world and has caused considerable internal and external harm to peoples and nations.

Is it appropriate to build, on the ruins of the old system defeated on 24 March 2024, another model of political and institutional organisation more aligned with the aspirations of the people, who brought a duo to power rather than a single individual, as a “Bonapartist” constitution would require — that is, a strong president vested with near-demigod powers?

Answering these questions requires going deeper and identifying the roots of the current crisis.

The split is the culmination of two years of mounting tensions, revealing two contrasting political visions: that of the president, perceived as more conciliatory, and that of Ousmane Sonko, oriented toward a more radical break with the existing order.

Yet the immediate trigger raises questions. Were the Prime Minister’s statements before Parliament, only hours before his dismissal, the straw that broke the camel’s back? In those remarks, he declared that “the President was wrong,” referring to the management of political funds — a kind of slush fund in which opacity has long been the norm.

Was this what precipitated the clash between the two leaders?

Before being dismissed, Ousmane Sonko addressed MPs directly: “The President was wrong,” he said, before adding, “I hope he will come to his senses,” effectively issuing an ultimatum regarding the adoption of a reform bill.

From our perspective, this aspect is certainly relevant in understanding the chronology of events. However, we believe the heart of the matter lies elsewhere.

It is widely known that the World Bank–IMF system had suspended all disbursements and was pressing for debt restructuring, leading to the implementation of an austerity programme — a harsh remedy whose mechanisms are familiar only to the IMF and World Bank “experts” who design such policies. Sonko rejected this approach outright.

An alleged IMF demand calling for Sonko’s removal as a precondition for restoring normal relations with Senegal appears, in our view, to be a key element in any serious analysis that seeks to take into account the legitimate aspirations of the Senegalese people.

The Pastef programme, embodied by the Diomaye–Sonko team and endorsed by the electorate, became increasingly incompatible with the prescriptions of the IMF and the World Bank. This incompatibility constitutes the political foundation of the rift between the two leaders. One might also add that personal ambition and competing egos may have accelerated the split at the summit of the state.

This process has undoubtedly been encouraged by the manoeuvres of sectors of the “deep state” in its various forms — namely, all those who upheld the patronage system shaken by the events of March 2024: conservative forces tied to the former corrupt order that contributed to the impoverishment and precariousness of the people.

The political phase now unfolding is unprecedented. Sonko and his party, which hold a majority in the National Assembly, now find themselves in opposition to the very president they helped bring to power.

In any case, the diverse coalition of citizens that mobilised to dismantle a neo-colonial system in March 2024 remains the principal driving force and decisive factor in the country’s political future. It is upon them that the continuation and deepening of the political and social transformation initiated during the 2024 presidential elections now depends.

We remain attentive to this popular majority, for it is they — in their vibrant plurality and joyful, creative diversity — who will write the next chapters of this meaningful journey. We call, with all our conviction, for this process to unfold under the banner of non-violence.

That meaning — so often lost and so often rediscovered — opens the possibility of a radiant future, reconnecting us with those forebears who, in different ways, left Senegal, Africa, and the world better than they found them.

The emergence of youth, women, and the people themselves is inevitable. When? In what forms? Under what conditions? Let us hope that violence will remain absent from this inevitable confrontation — for our own sake, for Africa, and for all people of goodwill.